Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the departmental proceeding against him as far back as in February 1979 while the petitioner was in service as an Engineer. The respondent No. 2 framed certain charges against the delinquent petitioner regarding the defalcation of some amount and for misconduct. Pursuant to the charges the delinquent petitioner is said to have submitted his written statement of defence. But somehow or other he preferred to file a writ petition in this Court in 1980 which was pending till 1993. In the aforesaid writ petition this Court passed a Rule directing the respondent No. 2 from not proceeding with the departmental enquiry till the finalisation of the Rule. Therefore, the proceeding was kept alive till the disposal of the writ petition, i.e. 1993. The matter when appeared before the Court for final hearing, since either the petitioner or his learned Advocate was found present, the matter was dismissed for default and finally the Rule was discharged. In course of time it appears that the writ petitioner has already retired on superannuation and he has received all other financial benefits accrued to his credit. The gratuity required to be payable by the respondent No. 2 was not disbursed on account of pendency of departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner.
(3.) Therefore, the writ petitioner has again approached this Court for an appropriate direction to quash the proceeding as it remained pending for such a length of time unreasonably and without any basis. On being asked to Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner to satisfy whether on the eve of retirement the disciplinary proceeding automatically comes to an end, he has submitted that the Rule does not specifically say so as to such departmental proceeding will be terminated on account of retirement of the Employee/Officer. For appreciation of the case it would be better to quote here rule 34.2:- "34.2 - The departmental proceeding, if instituted while the employee was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall, after his final retirement of the employee be deemed to be proceeding and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service.";