Judgment Barin Ghosh and Navaniti Pd.Singh JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing a charge-sheet against the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner retired while on suspension. Subsequently upon completion of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer holding that the charges against the petitioner have been proved, a punishment order was passed under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules and thereby pension payable to the petitioner stood reduced to the extent as mentioned in the punishment order. 3. Before this incident, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition. That Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the employer to pay salaries for the period the petitioner was under suspension before his retirement in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceeding could not be completed before retirement and also fixation of pension payable to the petitioner. 4. Inasmuch as the pension was reduced and inasmuch as the Bihar State Electricity Board decided not to pay salary for the period of suspension, for that period the petitioner had been paid subsistence allowance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition. In that the petitioner contended that there was no decision to convert the disciplinary proceeding into a proceeding under Rule 43B of the said Rules and accordingly anything purported to have been done under the said Rules is vitiated. In addition to that it was contended that inasmuch as there is a direction of this Court to settle the pension of the petitioner and pay the pension of the petitioner, no part of the pension payable to the petitioner could be reduced. By an elaborate judgment rendered by the Writ Court, these two grounds of challenge have been rejected by the Writ Court. Before the Writ Court, one other contention of the petitioner was that the enquiry report had not been served before the order impugned was passed. The Writ Court noticed the Full Bench Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court and found that despite the enquiry report having been brought on record in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has not been able to point out by filing an affidavit or in the rejoinder that by reason of non-supply of the enquiry report the petitioner suffered in any manner whatsoever. 5. 5. The proviso to Rule 43B of the said Rules abundantly makes it clear that in relation to a person whose disciplinary proceeding could not be concluded before his retirement, the same can be concluded by imposing such punishment as provided in Rule 43B of the said Rules in case the misconduct is proved. That itself makes it abundantly clear that there is nothing in the said Rules which requires taking of any step for continuing the pending disciplinary proceeding as a proceeding under the said Rules. On the other hand the same is an automatic transposition. The fact remains that after an employee superannuates he goes beyond the disciplinary authority of the employer. As a result, the punishments like dismissal, warning, censure etc. become meaning less. In such view of the matter, by the said Rules the disciplinary authority has been authorized to punish such a delinquent, if the charges against him stand proved, as has been prescribed in Rule 43B of the said Rules. 6. It is true that the Writ Court in the earlier proceeding directed settlement and payment of the pension payable to the petitioner. The Writ Court, however, did not determine what was the payable pension of the petitioner. The Writ Court left the matter of payability of pension to be determined by the employer. While determining it was found that the petitioner was entitled to his pension less than what he would have been otherwise entitled to on the order under Rule 43B of the said Rules. 7. In those circumstances we feel that the elaborate judgment rendered by the Writ Court needs no interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.