JUDGMENT : - 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 same 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 be 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 finalization 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 bas 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 unreasonable, 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 bas submitted that the Rule docs 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 342 :- "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 is the same matter as if the employees had continued in service." 4. Mr. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate bas submitted that this Rule shall not apply in the present case inasmuch as it is in conflict that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act But I found that this Rule is only supplementary to the Section 14 of the Act and in no way is in conflict with the said provision. Therefore, the departmental proceeding cannot be quashed only on the ground of delay. Mr. Ghosh bas drawn my attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (1) 1988 (1) CLJ page 373. On a careful reading of the decision of the abovementioned case I found that the facts of that case are quite distinguishable from the present case. In the Instant case the around for pendency of the writ petition can solely be attributed against the petitioner because of the pendency of the earlier writ petition which was ultimately dismissed for default. But at any rate, since after disposal of the writ petition it would have been the duty of the employer to take all such possible steps to bring it to a close. 5. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has seriously contended that it could not be finalized on account of non-cooperation by the petitioner, of course which have been a disputed by Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner. 6. Since the petitioner has already retired from service as far back as in 1994, it is high time for the employer to take all possible steps to wind up the departmental proceeding expeditiously. Accordingly. I direct the respondent No.2 to Instruct to hasten up the hearing of the disciplinary proceeding and pass final order within a period of three months from date. I hope and trust that the delinquent petitioner shall co-operate in all manner for disposal of the departmental proceeding in his own interest expeditiously within the time bound limitation indicated hereinabove in cage the departmental proceeding could not be completed within the time then it shall be deemed that the delinquent is discharged from all charges framed against him and he shall be entitled to the full benefits accrued to him Under the law. As per the discussion made above the writ petition is disposed of.