JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the continuance of three different disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner after his retirement from service. 2. The Petitioner joined as Sub-Divisional Manager in the erstwhile Orissa Forest Corporation in the year 1967. With the formation of Orissa Forest Development Corporation (OFDC for short), the Petitioner continued in the service of the Corporation and was promoted to the post of Deputy Divisional Manager in the year 1979 and subsequently promoted to the post of Divisional Manager in the year 1991. The Petitioner retired from service of OFDC, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.12.2001. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that while continuing in service as Divisional Manager, Jajpur Road, under OFDC, a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him vide office Order Dated 21.09.1996 for causing financial loss to the Corporation amounting to Rs. 53,568, which was paid to six employees of OFDC towards enhancement of wages, to which they were not legally entitled to. The Petitioner submitted his explanation refuting the charges. The management of OFDC, not being satisfied with the explanation filed by the Petitioner appointed the General Manager as the Enquiry Officer, for enquiring into the charges. The Enquiry Officer after considering the materials on record and hearing the parties, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges of allowing enhanced wages to six employees of OFDC and accordingly held the Petitioner liable for an amount of Rs.38,340. 4. Considering the enquiry report and the materials on record, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and directed recovery of Rs. 38,220 from the retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner, vide Order Dated 06.05.2003. 5. Against the order of punishment of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of OFDC, who in its meeting held on 20.12.2003, rejected the appeal and upheld the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. In the meantime, another disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide office Order Dated 13.12.2000 for issuing tender notice of a condemned jeep without following proper procedure and putting the Corporation to financial loss. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charges and the same having been found unsatisfactory, the management initiated a enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said charges and the same having been found unsatisfactory, the management initiated a enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. 7.The Enquiry Officer after considering the documents on record and hearing the parties submitted his report on.25.07.2001, holding the Petitioner responsible for the loss sustained by the Corporation. 8. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the enquiry report and the materials on record, agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed for recovery of Rs. 5,972 from the retirement dues payable to the Petitioner. 9. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of OFDC, who vide Order Dated 28.04.2004, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 10. A third departmental proceeding was drawn up against the Petitioner vide Order Dated 19.12.2000 on as many as 14 charges, including the charges that the Petitioner had failed to deposit excess house rent of Rs. 6,000 paid to him and also failed to deposit excess telephone charges of Rs.10,146 .The Petitioner submitted his reply/ explanation on 08.03.2001, refuting the charges. The same having been found unsatisfactory, the management appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The Enquiring Officer on consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, submitted his report on 14.09.2003, exonerating the Petitioner from all most all the charges except the charge regarding non-deposit of excess house rent. 11. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the enquiry report and the accompanying documents and the show cause filed by the Petitioner, accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and directed recovery of Rs.6,000 from the Petitioner, towards excess house rent from his retiral dues payable. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of OFDC, who on consideration, rejected the same on the ground of limitation, vide Order Dated 28.04.2008. 13. 12. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of OFDC, who on consideration, rejected the same on the ground of limitation, vide Order Dated 28.04.2008. 13. The sole ground of challenge in this Writ Petition is that since the Petitioner retired from the service of OFDC on 31.12.2001, the departmental proceedings initiated against him during his service period, could not have been continued after the date of his retirement, in absence of any such provision in the service rule of OFDC and therefore the order of the Disciplinary Authority, in all the three departmental proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. In this regard, the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others. The Petitioner has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sukadev Behera Vs. M.D., OFDC Ltd. in support of his contentiorrthat the subsequent rules framed by the OFDC, authorizing the management to initiate and continue proceedings after superannuation/ retirement/termination of service, which was brought into the force with effect from February, 2004, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 14. The decision relied upon by the Petitioner in Bhagirathi Jena case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the Petitioner has duty participated in all the three disciplinary proceedings, even after his retirement from the service of OFDC and has not raised any objection with regard to the maintainability of such proceedings after his superannuation,. Further, the Petitioner having preferred three appeals before the Board of Directors of OFDC, against the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority, imposing punishments in the three proceedings and no ground having been taken therein, with regard to the maintainability of the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement, he cannot be permitted to raise such a plea now at this belated stage, after rejection of his appeals. The Petitioner having participated in the disciplinary proceedings, even after his retirement from service of OFDC and allowed the same to conclude, without any objection, is estopped from raising such a plea now for the first time in the present Writ Petition. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed