JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Second Appeal Nos.447/97 and 232/98 dated 22.5.2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the trial court as well as of the appellate court and held that the punishment recorded is justified and the requirement of following the procedure for recording the major penalty is not required in the matter. 3. Aggrieved against the High Court order, the present appeal has been filed. We need not to go into the question whether the proper procedure for recording the major penalty has been followed or not. In this case, suffice it to say that the impugned judgment which has been passed by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is purely laconic order. Even after going through the regulation 37 it is expected that whatever the defence has been put by the incumbent should have been considered and thereafter a proper speaking order ought to have been passed. But the order in question dated 25.6.1983 is hopelessly laconic order in which only the charges have been mentioned and whatever defence has been given by the incumbent has not been considered at all. We could have set aside this order being a non-speaking order and remanded the matter back to the Financial Corporation, but looking to the distance of time i.e. the order passed on 25.6.1983, we have been informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the incumbent has already taken voluntary retirement. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 25.6.1983 and direct that whatever monetary consequential benefits are due to the appellant may be paid to him within three months. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.