Order The Court: Both the appeals of Hindustan Copper Ltd. and the Union of India are disposed of by this common judgement. This is an appeal from the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Barin Ghosh on 10th of December, 1999 quashing two chargesheets against the writ petitioner, both issued in the month of February, 1998. 2. After the writ petitioner had availaed himself of the grant of extensions, he superannuated from service on the 28th of February, 1998. 3. Although he retired, he answered the charge-sheets even after his retirement; it was mentioned that after retirement the disciplinary proceedings could not continue; the writ petitioner's case was that as per his answers the charges should be dropped; in case those were not dropped, he asked for a personal hearing, together with air fare and accommodation. We were told that these were provided. 4. The principal point of law with which we are concerned here is whether disciplinary proceedings can be continued against a retired employee. 5. Reviewing the authorities as were cited before us, it seems to us that the answer to this query is plain in Indian Service Jurisprudence. The answer is that it all depends upon the Service Rules. 6. Let us illustrate from some of the decisions. 7. In the case of G. Ganayutham, reported at 1997 (7) SCC 463 , the case cited by Mr. Mitter appearing for HCL, continuation of the proceedings could be made even after cesessation of employer and employee relationship, because even upon a finding that the employee should have been dismissed, it would be possible to withhold pension. 8. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena, reported at 1999 (3) SCC page 666, the charge-sheet was dated 22.9.92 and the superannuation 30.6.95. At paragraph 7 the Supreme Court pointed out that since there was no rule to continue disciplinary proceedings beyond superannuation, no authority vested in the Orissa State Financial Corporation to make such a continuation. 9. In the very same case in paragraph 8 their Lordships pointed out another Supreme Court case, being Mankad's case reported at 1989, Supplement 2 SCC, page no, where because of the existence of a specific rule such continuation beyond superannuation was held to be permissible. 10. 9. In the very same case in paragraph 8 their Lordships pointed out another Supreme Court case, being Mankad's case reported at 1989, Supplement 2 SCC, page no, where because of the existence of a specific rule such continuation beyond superannuation was held to be permissible. 10. We should mention also two Division Bench cases of our High Court, where the clear trend of decision seems to be in this line that in general disciplinary proceedings cannot continue beyond retirement. In the case of Dena Bank vs. Amiya Kumar Dey, reported at 1988(1) CLJ 373 , the Court of Appeal was dealing with an order passed by the writ Court which, at the instance of the employee' writ petitioner directed conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings within three weeks; in default those would be quashed. 11. The appeal court did not interfere with this order. In the result the proceedings got quashed. There are clear observations of the Division Bench that after retirement disciplinary proceedings are not to continue. 12. In the case reported at 1993 CLT, page 287 (Mrinal Kanti Chakraborty), retiral benefits were withheld from an employee upon whom a charge-sheet was served on 26.12.89, though he was due to retire just a few days later on 1.1.90. Again in this judgment there are indications that in general the Courts frown upon continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond retirement. It was also said that in the facts and circumstances of that case the proceedings could not continue. It was also observed that withholding of retiral benefits appeared to be harsh and contrary to the principles usually furthered in a welfare State. 13. We have examined the Service Rules in details here. We find that there is no rule which permits the continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the date of superannuation, nor do we find that there is any rule which permits the withholding of any benefits if in a disciplinary proceeding a finding of, (although retrospective) merited punishment is entered. On the other hand we note that the Finance Ministry Extract (Bureau of Public Enterprises) GM No. 15/33/84-GM dated 29.8.85, which was pointed out by Mr. Mitter, and which provided that gratuity would not be paid to an employee unless disciplinary proceedings against him were concluded, was withdrawn and superseded by Office Memorandum No. 2/29/75-BPE(WC) dated 30.10.90, which was pointed out by Mr. Ghosh to us. Mitter, and which provided that gratuity would not be paid to an employee unless disciplinary proceedings against him were concluded, was withdrawn and superseded by Office Memorandum No. 2/29/75-BPE(WC) dated 30.10.90, which was pointed out by Mr. Ghosh to us. Reference may be made to pages 68 and 84 in the Paper Book of Appeal From Original Order No. 23 of 2000 in Writ Petition No. 926 of 1999. 14. As such we find, with due respect, nothing wrong with the order passed by the Hon'ble Judge in the first Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 15. The amounts deposited to the credit of the appeals along with principal and interest shall be handed over without any delay to the respondent Krishnendu Narayan Ghosh or his duly authorised representative Advocate, in any event not later than three weeks from date. All parties and others concerned to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings. Ajoy Nath Ray, J. S.N. Bhattacharjee, J. Appeals dismissed.