VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J. - (1.)BY this writ petition, the petitioner, who took voluntary retirement from the respondent no.1/school w.e.f 5.7.2012, seeks setting aside of the memorandum/charge -sheet dated 1.1.2013 and all proceedings emanating therefrom. Petitioner accordingly argues that since charge -sheet has to be quashed, he should be paid all the terminal and retiral benefits which have been withheld by the respondent no.1/school and which were withheld on account of the departmental proceedings. I may note that the respondent no.1/school is an aided school i.e 95% of the finances are provided by the Government of NCT of Delhi through the respondent no.2/Director of Education.
(2.)ADMITTED facts are that before the petitioner took voluntary retirement w.e.f 5.7.2012, the managing committee of the respondent no.1/school as per its meeting dated 28.4.2012 had decided to commence disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, however, charge -sheet was only issued subsequently on 1.1.2013 i.e after retirement of the petitioner. The issue before this Court is whether the respondent no.1/school can initiate proceedings against a teacher after retirement. It is the undisputed position before me that employees of the respondent no.1/school including the petitioner are governed by the relevant CCS Pension Rules as also Central Civil Services Leave Rules in view of the order of the Director of Education dated 25.3.1991. We will therefore have to examine whether there are provisions in CCS Pension Rules and Central Civil Services Leave Rules which entitle the respondent no.1/school to initiate departmental proceedings after retirement of an employee and also as to whether these rules entitle withholding of terminal benefits during pendency of departmental proceedings commenced after retirement.
At the outset, I may note that since the Pension Rules and Leave Encashment Rules being applicable to respondent no.1/school are the rules of the Central Government, the same obviously will have to be applied mutatis mutandis when the same are applied to employees/teachers of schools, i.e so far as certain language or certain requirements are concerned they cannot be applied on the basis of literal application and construction of the Pension and Leave Encashment Rules and the language will have to be read in a suitable altered manner on being applied to disciplinary proceedings which are conducted by the schools. I may also state that Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 apply to employees of a school and therefore relevant CCS (Pension) Rules and the Leave Encashment Rules will have to be read with the relevant provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The relevant provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 are Rules 118 to 120 which provide for disciplinary proceedings and imposition of punishment.

(3.)ON behalf of the petitioner, it is contended before me, that, there is no power in the respondent no.1 -school to initiate disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the petitioner and hence the memorandum of charges dated 1.1.2013 issued after retirement on 5.7.2012, needs to be quashed. It is also argued that once disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement, petitioner will be entitled to all the terminal and retirement benefits as if no disciplinary proceedings are pending. It is also argued that entitlement to withhold the pension and gratuity in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules is only after there is a final order of the disciplinary authority or a judgment of the Court is passed that the charged/guilty employee has caused pecuniary loss to the employer/organization. This aforesaid argument urged is qua the pension and gratuity payment. With respect to Leave Encashment Rules it is argued on the basis of Rule 39(3) of the Leave Encashment Rules that even assuming pension and gratuity cannot be paid as per the CCS Pension Rule 9, however, so far as leave encashment payment is concerned, the provision of Rule 39(3) is quite clearly different inasmuch as there is no provision for initiating proceedings after retirement and withholding/appropriation of leave encashment amounts payable can only be after a final order in disciplinary proceedings or there is a judgment passed by the Court. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. 2013 (10) SCALE 310 to argue that Supreme Court in this judgment has laid down the ratio that unless the departmental proceedings stand concluded or there is a judgment of the civil court by which the employee is held guilty of causing pecuniary loss, retirement benefits cannot be withheld by the school.