JUDGMENT : M.S. JAWALKAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the decision dated 15/06/2020, whereby the respondent No.1-Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati illegally denied payment of salary, pension, and retiral benefits, unlawfully scrapped the enquiry reports of Divisional Enquiry Officer and initiated a third enquiry. By amending the petition, the petitioner further seeks to quash and set aside the report of third enquiry and also to quash and set aside the resolution dated 11/08/2020 by which the decision to hold de novo enquiry was taken and consequentially afresh enquiry report dated 19/02/2022 as well as order dated 15/06/2022 came to be passed thereby punishment was imposed. 4. During pendency of the present petition, petitioner Dr. Nilkanth Bhusari reported to be dead and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 11/01/2024. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner was a highly qualified academician with over 40 years of service, holding Ph.D. in Zoology, nationally recognised researcher, and former Principal of Shri Shivaji Science and Arts College, Chikhli, with an unblemished academic record. The respondent No.2-University on 15/02/2018 informed the petitioner about anomalies in the submission of examination fees for the Winter session of 2017. On enquiry, it was discovered that staff members Shri V.B. Chavhan and Shri R.T. Shinde had committed fraud by fabricating challans and misappropriating the amount of examination fees. The petitioner on 20/02/2018 requested the respondent No.4 - Secretary of Society, to initiate a departmental enquiry against Shri V.B. Chavhan, which confirmed a fraud. Thereafter, with the permission dated 13/03/2018, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 03/04/2018 against the Shri V.B. Chavhan and offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered. In the meantime, the Management got changed and new Management took the charge. Despite acting lawfully, the petitioner was illegally suspended on 23/04/2018 without granting an opportunity of hearing. During suspension, he continued to serve at the assigned institution. 6. The respondent No.2-University imposed a fine of Rs.54,00,260/- on the Management, but the new Management illegally sought recovery of fine from the petitioner. Despite acting lawfully, the petitioner was illegally suspended on 23/04/2018 without granting an opportunity of hearing. During suspension, he continued to serve at the assigned institution. 6. The respondent No.2-University imposed a fine of Rs.54,00,260/- on the Management, but the new Management illegally sought recovery of fine from the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice from the respondent No.4-Secretary to deposit an amount of Rs.54,00,260/- within 15 days on account of late fees on individual level, the petitioner however, consistently denied liability, since both the enquiries had exonerated the petitioner and Shri V.B.Chavan was held guilty for the irregularities. 7. The petitioner challenged the suspension and recovery notice in Writ Petition No.8377/2018, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 20/08/2019, on the basis of the terms and conditions stated in the joint pursis dated 19/07/2019, recognizing the suspension as duty period and reinstatement without stigma. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was invited by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for mutual settlement and did arrive at one, with certain terms and conditions. 8. The petitioner was reinstated on 26/08/2019 in Gopalrao Khedkar Mahavidyalaya, but was not paid salary till his retirement on 31/12/2019, nor paid any suspension wages or pension, despite multiple follow-ups. The petitioner pointed out that he faced departmental enquiry during the period of his suspension and the said enquiry is completed. In the report of Presentation Officer dated 30/04/2019, Shri V.B. Chavhan was found guilty and the petitioner was exonerated. In spite of the exoneration, the respondent No.4 continuously pressurised the petitioner to deposit the fine amount of Rs.54,00,260/-. Another enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.4 through Divisional Enquiry Officer. In this enquiry also the petitioner is exonerated from all charges levelled against him, which can be found in the report dated 28/11/2019, both the reports dated 30/04/2019 and 28/11/2019 held Shri Chavhan guilty. Despite this, the respondent No.4 concealed both the reports while proposing provisional pension on 18/03/2020, and falsely conveyed that the petitioner was liable to pay fine for the University, resulting in denial of pension by the respondent No.1 on 15/06/2020. 9. Despite this, the respondent No.4 concealed both the reports while proposing provisional pension on 18/03/2020, and falsely conveyed that the petitioner was liable to pay fine for the University, resulting in denial of pension by the respondent No.1 on 15/06/2020. 9. After superannuation on 31/12/2019, the respondent No.4 in its reply dated 04/09/2020 to the legal notice dated 14/08/2020 sent by the petitioner stated that both the enquiry reports were scrapped and initiated a third enquiry on 07/10/2020, without hearing the petitioner and in violation of service Rules, despite no employer-employee relationship subsisting after retirement, which was conducted during COVID and hospitalization of the petitioner. The said third enquiry was conducted without proper notice, culminated in adverse report, contrary to two prior exoneration, reflecting mala fides and victimization. The initiation of third enquiry after the superannuation of the petitioner is bad-in-law. The petitioner had not received salary from the date of his reinstatement till the date of his retirement. He had also not received subsistence allowance, or regular pension and continued to be harassed to pay the fine to the University, despite having no liability and despite holding Shri Chavhan guilty. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in Ashok Ramrao Kadam v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 830. 11. Per contra, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that, the petitioner being the Principal was the executive and academic head of the college and hence was liable for the misdeed committed by his subordinate. The petitioner with malicious intent, tried to mix two different misconduct one of which is non-submission of exam fees of 2018 amounting to Rs.7,400/- and another pursuant to the fine imposed on the Society by the University amounting Rs.54,00,260/-. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 had fully complied with the terms and conditions of the joint pursis submitted in Writ Petition No.8377/2018. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 contended that the petitioner had received provisional pension for the period of six months, i.e., from 01/01/2020 to 30/06/2020 and that on 01/09/2020, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.1 and had accepted the receipt of Provisional Pension. It is also submitted that the first enquiry report was placed before the Executive Council of the Society and on 21/01/2020, the said report was rejected and a fresh enquiry was ordered on the same charges. It is also submitted that the first enquiry report was placed before the Executive Council of the Society and on 21/01/2020, the said report was rejected and a fresh enquiry was ordered on the same charges. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a communication to the petitioner dated 15/06/2020 and informed about the principle of “No Work, No Pay” and therefore the arrears could not be paid. 12. The respondent No.1 in its reply enumerated same allegations contained in the reply of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The respondent No.1 further submitted that the departmental enquiry revealed that the petitioner had allegedly collected unauthorized fees from scholarship holding students and illegally provided the gain of scholarship to his son and to the son of one of the lecturers and a complaint regarding the same was registered at Chikali Police Station, Buldhana against the petitioner and resultantly an FIR was lodged. The respondent No.1 in its additional affidavit-in-reply submitted that the fresh enquiry conducted against the petitioner had been finalized on 19/02/2022 and consequently the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2,38,66,356/- towards financial lapses and misappropriation on his part. 13. The respondent No.2 submitted that apparently there lies a dispute between respondent Nos.3 and 4 and for the said reason the respondent No.2 does not wish to interfere in the proceedings. It is also contended that the fine that was imposed to the tune of Rs.54,00,260/- neither been challenged nor been objected by both the petitioner and the Management, and till date, the office of respondent No.2 had not received the said fine. All the respondents submitted that the present petition may kindly be dismissed. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully examined the pleadings and documents on record, and duly considered the authorities relied upon by the respective parties. 15. Admittedly, there were departmental enquiries against the petitioner in view of anomalies in the submissions of examination fees for Winter session of 2017, however, it was discovered that staff members Shri V.B. Chavhan and Shri R.T. Shinde had committed fraud by fabricating challans and misappropriating the amount of examination fees. The FIR was lodged against them under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. As there was a change in the Management on 23/04/2018, the petitioner was suspended. The respondent No.2 University imposed a fine of Rs.54,00,260/- on the Management. The FIR was lodged against them under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. As there was a change in the Management on 23/04/2018, the petitioner was suspended. The respondent No.2 University imposed a fine of Rs.54,00,260/- on the Management. The Management sought recovery of fine from the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the suspension and recovery notice before this Court in Writ Petition No.8377/2018, which was disposed of in view of settlement between the parties. As per the settlement, suspension period was treated as duty period and the petitioner was reinstated without stigma. It was also agreed that the petitioner would not claim any back wages and allowances after his reinstatement from the respondent Society. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to claim the same from the relevant authority, if permissible in law and respondent No.1 shall help the petitioner for the same as well as clear the pension case of the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the issue of imposition of penalty of Rs.54,00,260/- by way of a separate petition. In terms of compromise pursis, the petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition No. 8377/2018, came to be disposed of. 16. The petitioner was reinstated, however, his salary is not paid till retirement on 31/12/2019. In first enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated vide report dated 30/04/2019 and the second enquiry was conducted through the Divisional Enquiry Officer, in this enquiry also, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges vide report dated 28/11/2019 and in both the reports held Shri Chavhan guilty. The petitioner stood retired on 31/12/2019. It appears that the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice to Joint Director Higher Education to release back wages for the period of suspension, which was treated as duty period, payment for which the petitioner was in service i.e. 26/08/2019 to 31/12/2019 and to release outstanding amount of pension from the period of superannuation till the date of issuance of notice and his pension be regularized. Similarly, the President of Society was also served with the notice. It appears that in reply to the notice, the Management blamed to the petitioner that he has committed breach of compromise pursis as not filed the separate petition challenging the recovery of amount of Rs.54,00,260/-. 17. Similarly, the President of Society was also served with the notice. It appears that in reply to the notice, the Management blamed to the petitioner that he has committed breach of compromise pursis as not filed the separate petition challenging the recovery of amount of Rs.54,00,260/-. 17. It is the contention of the petitioner that enquiry after retirement is against the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. There was a letter issued by the Secretary of Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha to the petitioner dated 20/07/2020, i.e. after retirement of the petitioner, calling upon him to pay Rs.54,00,260/- to which, the petitioner is duly submitted his reply dated 22/09/2020, wherein reference to two enquiry reports is there by which, recovery was proposed in the enquiry against one V. B. Chavhan. In spite of this position, it appears that the Secretary of the Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha vide its letter dated 07/10/2020, directed to conduct the enquiry (Annexure R6 – page 163). On perusal of the said order, it reveals that de novo enquiry was initiated. Admittedly, the petitioner stood retired on 31/12/2019. It would be beneficial for the sake of convenience to reproduce the Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 as under : “27. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension. (1) Appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period, and also order the recovery from such pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in respect of officers holding posts within their purview: Provided further that whether a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not be reduced below the minimum fixed by Government. (2) (a) The Departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if Instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. (b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of (Appointing Authority). (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to the departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of and event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (4) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in rule 130 shall be sanctioned. (5) Where Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not, subject to the provision of sub-rule (1) of this rule, ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) for the purpose of this rule: (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. (6) for the purpose of this rule: (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted: (i) In the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made. (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of presenting the plaint in the Court.” On perusal of the order dated 07/10/2020, it is clear that a fresh memorandum along with charge-sheet was served on the petitioner to conduct a fresh enquiry. Such enquiry is not permissible in view of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ashok Ramrao Kadam (supra), wherein this Court in para 13 held as under : “13. The clause 6 of Rule 27 would be more relevant in the facts of the present case. Sub-Clause 6(a) makes it clear that Departmental Proceedings would be deemed to be instituted on the date on which statement of charges is issued to the Government Servant or Pensioner. Therefore, there is no scope to countenance submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondents that date of show cause notice would constitute date of Institution of Departmental Proceeding. The Supreme Court of India in case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors O.S.F.C. and others while dealing with the provisions of Orissa State Financial Staff Regulation, 1975 observed as under :- “6. It will be noticed from the above-said regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental Enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental Enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such provision in the above-said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95, there was no authority vested in the Corporation or continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.” 19. It is an admitted fact that there were two reports exonerating the petitioner from all the charges dated 30/04/2019 and 28/11/2019. The petitioner stood retired from superannuation on 31/12/2019 and he was relieved from the services by the respondent Management. Admittedly, on 07/10/2020, the petitioner was served with the order along with memorandum and charge-sheet. Thus, the fresh departmental proceedings initiated on the date on which statement of charges is issued to the petitioner i.e. 07/10/2020, much after his retirement. The petitioner was granted provisional pension in view of the order dated 11/01/2021 passed by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division, Amravati. As there was one proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No. 170/2017 was pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chikhali, however, in view of the death of the petitioner, the said proceedings would have abated, at least nothing was placed on record. Moreover, it was not in connection with the fresh enquiry proposed after retirement of petitioner. 20. Be that as it may, here the petitioner challenging the enquiry commenced after his retirement specifically when he was in service there was two departmental enquiries conducted and in both the departmental enquiries, the petitioner was exonerated. Before initiating de novo enquiry, no opportunity was granted nor reasons were supplied to scrap the earlier enquiry reports by which the petitioner was exonerated. As such, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed as under : (i) It is held and declared that the enquiry initiated vide order dated 07/10/2020 is illegal, void ab initio and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and consequently, report dated 19/02/2022 as well as order of imposition of punishment dated 15/06/2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to release the amount of regular pension as well as difference in pension till the death of petitioner and pensionary benefits if the petitioner would have been alive. (iii) The respondent No.1 further directed to pay salary from reinstatement of petitioner till his date of retirement. (iv) The respondent No.1 further directed to release the back wages for the period of suspension and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to submit pay bills in respect of suspension period of the petitioner. 21. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.