JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus/prohibition be issued directing the respondents not to proceed further with the enquiry against the petitioner being conducted by Dr. S.N. Singh. Additional City Magistrate. Varanasi, and the enquiry proceedings be quashed. A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to make an enquiry against Sri Rajendra Nath Misra.
2. The petitioner was posted in the office of Commissioner, Varanasi. He retired from there as administrative officer. Some complaints were received regarding misappropriation of public funds and public properties. One Sri Raj Kumar was posted as Additional Commissioner (Administration), Varanasi, between 10.6.1994 to 13.3.1996 and during the said period. S.T.D. calls worth Rs. 3,53,211 were made from the telephone bearing No. 382423 installed in the officials residence. The records regarding the aforesaid telephone bills and also the other S.T.D, bills were found missing from the office. Further, one lakh bricks stored in the office of Commissioner had been removed. It was also revealed that the petitioner had purchased a plot near Tripathi Crossing in Mumfordganj locality in Allahabad City, and had constructed a house. The assets of the petitioner were said to be disproportionate to his known source of income. The State Government instituted a vigilance enquiry, in that connection, an enquiry is being conducted by Dr. S.N. Singh, Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi in order to ascertain the facts. Dr. S.N. Singh then wrote a letter to the petitioner on 1.6.2001 asking him to give his reply regarding some clarifications sought from him. The petitioner wants quashing of the enquiry which is being conducted by Dr. S.N. Singh and further he may be restrained not to proceed with the enquiry.
3. We have heard Sri B.P. Singh for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record, Sri Singh has submitted that since the petitioner has retired from service, it is not open to the authorities to conduct any proceedings against him. The material on record shows that formal disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated against the petitioner. The vigilance department is holding some sort of a preliminary enquiry regarding the loss and misappropriation of public funds and public properties. The allegation against the petitioner seems to be that he connived in the disappearance of the telephone bills. Another allegation made against the petitioner is that he has constructed a house and the assets owned by him or by his wife are disproportionate to his known source of income. There is no statutory bar in holding a vigilance enquiry. If the assets owned and possessed by a public servant are disproportionate to his known source of income, a criminal prosecution can always be launched even after his retirement. Regulation 351 of Civil Service Regulations (Relating to Pensions) provides that disciplinary-proceedings may be initiated against a Government servant even after his retirement if the Governor has accorded sanction for the same. However, as mentioned earlier, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner so far and merely a vigilance enquiry is being conducted. We do not think that there is any ground to thwart the vigilance enquiry,
4. Learned counsel has next submitted that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner at the instance of Sri Rajendra Nath Misra, but it was actually he who had misappropriated the funds and therefore, proceedings should be drawn against him. The matter is being enquired into by the vigilance department and after the complete facts are known, the concerned authorities of the State are expected to take appropriate action against all those, who are found guilty.
5. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage.