JUDGMENT M.M. DAS, J. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing the disciplinary proceeding bearing D.P. No. 1 of 2009 initiated against him and also for quashing the order dated 17.3.2011 as at Annexure-7. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to delineate the facts involved in this case in gist. The petitioner after joining in service in the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on 7.5.1973 has served the Corporation in different capacity and has been superannuated from service on 30.4.2009. While in service as the Zonal Manager, Bhawanipatna, he was served with a memorandum of the charges under Regulation 19 of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1985 (in short 'Staff Regulation') on 25.4.2009 vide Disciplinary Proceeding No.1 of 2009: Thereafter, additional charges were framed on 29.4.2009. The petitioner has averred that he was not supplied with documents upon which the employer relied upon in the disciplinary proceeding for which the petitioner repeatedly made request and as the documents were not supplied to him, he did not get any opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him. The petitioner also alleges that as the disciplinary proceeding was initiated just three days prior to the date of his superannuation, levelling such action is an out come of personal vendetta. 3. Mrs. Pami Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1985 which governs the employees of the Corporation does not specifically provide for continuation of the disciplinary proceeding against an employee after he is superannuated. The petitioner' after being superannuated made several representations to the opposite party for release of the retiral dues, but the same has not been released till date. After being superannuated on 6.11.2010, the documents were supplied to the petitioner who received the same on 19.11.2010. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 6.11.2010, which was received by the petitioner on 19.11.2010 i.e. on the same date when he received the documents, in which the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether under the Staff Regulation, the disciplinary proceeding could not have continued after superannuation of the petitioner. The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether under the Staff Regulation, the disciplinary proceeding could not have continued after superannuation of the petitioner. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 , the Supreme Court, on facts, finding that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant therein under Regulation 44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 and charge-sheet was served on him on 22.7.1992. but the enquiry could not be completed against him till his retirement on 30.6.1995, held that no specific provision exists in the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry, nor is there any provision for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. In the absence of any such provisions, it must be held that the respondent-Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction from the appellant's retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after the appellant's retirement, nor is there any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Holding thus, the Supreme Court concluded that once the appellant retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing departmental enquiry even if for the purpose of imposing any reduction in retiral benefits payable to the appellant therein. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits. The Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1985 provides that the said Regulation shall apply to all the employees of the Corporation. "Employee" has been defined to mean a person who is in the whole time service of the Corporation but does not include a person employed by the Corporation on daily wages. Similarly, "Regular Employee" has been defined to mean an employee who has been declared to have completed the period of probation to the satisfaction of the appointing authority and is holding a post which has been declared as a regular post by the Board. Under Chapter-III, Regulation 1 provides that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Under Chapter-III, Regulation 1 provides that every employee shall retire on attaining the age of 58 years. In Chapter-V Regulation 18 under the heading "IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY", It is provided that where an employee is found guilty of breach of any of the Regulations or of any negligence, deficiency or indolence in the performance of his duties, or anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or any other act of misconduct, the penalty of dismissal from service amongst other penalties as prescribed thereunder may be imposed. There is absence of any provision in the Staff Regulation to continue a disciplinary proceeding after the employee is superannuated. As a matter of fact, from the definition clause, it is clear that an employee after being superannuated, the relationship of an employer and employee ceases and even if a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated when he was continuing as an employee, after superannuation, the relationship having severed and there being no provision to continue such disciplinary proceeding under the Regulation, continuation of a disciplinary proceeding after superannuation of an employee cannot be held to be legal and valid. On comparison, it is seen that Staff Regulation of the Corporation is in pari materia with the Staff Regulation of the Orissa State Financial Corporation, on the basis of which the judgment was passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra). The above decision of .the Supreme Court as well as the decision in the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 2003 SCW 2889, were relied upon by this Court in the case of Pratap Kishore Dash v. High Court of Orissa, 109 (2010) CLT 12, 2009 (Supp. II) OLR 377 for holding that in the absence of any specific provision under the relevant rules, the disciplinary proceeding could not have been continued against the petitioner therein after his retirement. The Supreme Court has reiterated the views in a number of judgments delivered thereafter. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in this writ petition, but, however, with regard to the contention that the Staff Regulation do not provide for continuation of the disciplinary proceeding after superannuation of an employee, the same is not denied in the counter affidavit. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the allegations made in this writ petition, but, however, with regard to the contention that the Staff Regulation do not provide for continuation of the disciplinary proceeding after superannuation of an employee, the same is not denied in the counter affidavit. However, it has been stated that since the enquiry is in process and it relates to financial loss to the Corporation, the like amount has been held up and other dues has been processed to be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Law is, therefore, well settled that in the absence of any specific rule it would not be permissible to continue the disciplinary proceeding even if initiated during the period of service of an employee after his superannuation and on that ground, payment of the ratiral benefits to the superannuated employee cannot be withheld on the ground that if found guilty, money is to be recovered from him. 6. In view of the above, this Court unhesitating quashes the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner in its entirety and directs that all retiral benefits be paid to the petitioner forthwith. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. B.K. MISRA, J. I agree. CRLMC allowed.