Sri Janardan Prasad Sharma, petitioner herein moved this writ petition on 16-12-1988, inter alia, praying, for stay of the opera tion of the impugned order, dated 20-9-1988 passed by the Vice- Chancellor, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, whereupon a Division Bench, consisting of Honble V. N. Khare and Honble J. N. Dubey, JJ. (as their Lordship then were), merely issued notice, and directed the application to be listed before the learned Single Judge on 4-1-1939. 2. Thereafter, by a reasoned judgment Honble M. P. Singh, J, (as His Lordship then was), on 4-8-1989 refused to grant any stay order and rejected the said application, inter alia, observing that the main question to be decided in the writ petition is to whether the punishment imposed should be taken effect to, or not, in respect of the petitioner. 3. The facts of the case are that the Syndicate in its meeting dated 5/6-8-1988 resolved that show-cause notice should be served against the peti tioner as to why the punishment of stopping of five increments be not inflicted on Janardan Prasad Sharma and further resolved that his posting should be very carefully considered by the Administration in the light of charges established against him. 4. A show-cause notice was served on Shri J. P. Sharma the petitioner herein, on August 12, 1988 and report of the Enquiry Committee was also made available to him. 5. Subsequently, taking into consideration the report of the Enquiry Committee and also the reply submitted by Sri J. P. Sharma, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 16/17-M988 resolved that the proposed punishment decided in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 5/6-8-1988 does not need to be modified and is, therefore, finally awarded. Accordingly, it was resolved that the aforesaid punishment be imposed on Shri J. P. Sharma, the peti tioner herein. 6. Considering the resolution dated 5/6-8-1988 and 16/17-9-1988, the Vice-Chancellor, University of Roorkee, Roorkee vide his order dated 20-9-1988 recommended the following punishment, which is set out herein-below :- "that the punishment of stopping of five increments be inflicted on him and further his posting should be very carefully considered by the Administration in the light of the charges -established against him. " 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 20-9-1988, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. " 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 20-9-1988, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. This writ petition has come up for final hearing in the presence of learned counsel for the parties. 9. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri Dinesh Kakkar, for University of Roorkee. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was biased and without any fair play. In support of his contention he referred to a decision of Allahad High Court in the case of Km. Divya Chandra v. The Vice-Chancellor, Roorkee University, Roorkee, AIR 1992 All 298 , wherein Honble M. L. Bhat, J, (as His Lordship then was) held as follows : "committee recommending suspension of student and withholding of result-Syndicate approving withholding of result-Members of Enquiry Committee also members of Syndicate-Circumstances proved that members of Enquiry Committee were predetermined and biased against student-Proceedings of Committee therefore were against principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience. " 11. During the hearing, it has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the petitioner has since retired with effect from 30-6-1993, but the payment of retiral benefits etc. has not been included by an amendment and the relief clause of the writ petition has not been suit ably modified. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, this Court is well aware of a decision of Calcutta High Court, in the case of Government of West Bengal v. Ram Chandra Chaudhari, AIR 1973 Cal 220 . In the aforesaid decision, a Division Bench, consisting of Honble P. B. Mukherjee, C. J. sitting with Honble B. C. Mitra, J. observed that "court should not issue any infructuous writ. " 13. However, the aforesaid case when considered by a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court, the same was allowed by him. 14. A letters patent appeal being filed under clause 15 of the latters patent the then Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court observed that since prayer has not been amended during the pendency of the writ petition, it was not proper for learned single Judge to allow the writ petition when the petitioner had in fact retired from services on the date of delivering the judgment. 15. 15. Although, there is no judgment direct on this point by this Court at Allahabad, and as such, this Court can follow the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which is of persuasive value. 16. We, accordingly agree with the decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Government of West Bengal v. Ram Chandra Chaudhari (supra), and take the view that since the writ petition has not been properly amended after the retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30-6- 1993, we cannot grant any relief which would amount to grant of an "infructuous writ. " 17. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition can be dismissed on that score alone. However, going through the enquiry report, we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is commensurate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, and as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment as it is not at all dis proportionate to the charges. 18. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. .