ORDER : 1. The present special appeal is directed against the order of the ld. Single Judge of the order dt.29.08.2017. 2. The facts in brief which are relevant for disposal of the present special appeal are that the respondent-employee was appointed in service as Class-IV with the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. on 14.10.1977 and later promoted as Junior Sales Assistant on 04.11.1989. For the alleged delinquency which he had committed in discharging of his duties, a charge sheet for a major penalty u/R.8 of the Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter ‘the Rules 1974’) came to be served upon him and in all four charges were levelled against him which are in reference to his willful absence from duty. 3. At the outset, we may notice that no allegation in the charge sheet was in reference to corruption or misappropriation of funds or a dereliction in discharge of duties. In a regular enquiry the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority without affording opportunity of hearing and providing him the copy of enquiry report confirmed the finding of guilt and dismissed him from service vide order dt.18.04.1996. That came to be challenged by the respondent-employee in a departmental appeal and that remain undecided at this stage, he preferred S.B.C.W.P. No.3674/1996 which was disposed of vide order dt.23.07.1998, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the delinquent within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. In reference thereto the appeal was decided and that came to be challenged by the respondent-delinquent in subsequent S.B.C.W.P. No.2672/1999. 4. The ld. Single Judge taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties and so also the fact that delinquent as alleged was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing and non supply of the enquiry report has caused prejudice to him & taking note thereof set-aside the order of punishment vide its order dt.08.08.2008. 5. That came to be challenged by the appellants in D.B.S.A.W. No.2028/2008 and while confirming the order of the ld. 5. That came to be challenged by the appellants in D.B.S.A.W. No.2028/2008 and while confirming the order of the ld. Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court, in the earlier proceedings, in its order dt.04.05.2012, granted opportunity to the appellants to meet out the defects pointed out by the Single Bench and pass order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing which is otherwise a sine qua non embedded under the disciplinary Rules. 6. After judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier proceedings dt.04.05.2012 the respondent-employee was reinstated in service on 14.05.2012 and while in service attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014 & the enquiry was allowed to continue and finally he was again held guilt and inflicted the penalty of dismissal vide order dt.12.02.2016 confirming the original order of his dismissal passed by the Authorities dt.18.04.1996 quashed & set aside in the earlier proceedings which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed at the instance of the respondent-delinquent. 7. The question raised before the ld. Single Judge was that in absence of any express provision under the Disciplinary Rules 1974, the appellants were justified to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry after the delinquent has attained the age of superannuation and retired from service and such disciplinary proceedings stands automatically lapsed and further question raised was that once the order of penalty inflicted upon the delinquent in the disciplinary enquiry dt.18.04.1996 has been quashed & set aside by this Court it could not have been restored back by the disciplinary authority while passing subsequent order on 12.02.2016 and the punishment at least cannot be upheld with retrospective effect. 8. Taking note of both the submissions made by appellant’s counsel, the ld. Single Judge arrived to a conclusion that in absence of any express provision under the Disciplinary Rules 1974 the appointing authority was not justified in allowing the disciplinary proceedings to continue after the delinquent has attained the age of superannuation & retired from service & placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 followed with Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014) 7 SCC 260 and in defence the judgment on which much stress was paid by the appellant’s counsel in U.P. Coop. Federation Limited vs. L.P. Rai, (2007) & SCC 1981. 9. At the same time, the ld. Single was further of the view that since the order of penalty dt.18.04.1996 has been quashed & setaside by this Court, passing of later order of punishment dt.12.02.2016 could not have been retrospectively restored the earlier order of penalty dt.18.04.1996 which was also set-aside by this Court and was of the view that retrospectively upholding the punishment awarded to the delinquent vide order dt.12.02.2016 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Mr. R.P. Garg, Adv. appearing for the appellants submits that since the enquiry has been allowed to continue under the orders of this Court it could not be considered to be lapsed at the same time once the defects pointed out by this court in the earlier proceedings have been meted out by the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority, they were justified in upholding the finding of guilt & passing of an order of punishment dt.12.02.2016 restoring the punishment inflicted upon him on 18.04.1996 and this what the ld. Single Judge failed to consider while passing the order impugned & that deserves to be revisited by this Court. 11. Mr. Saransh Saini, Adv. appearing for the respondents while supporting the judgment of the ld. Single Judge submits that either submission made by the appellant’s counsel is not sustainable and the same has been examined by the ld. Single Judge in detail, needs no further indulgence of this Court. 12. We have heard counsel for the parties & perused the material available on record. 13. Single Judge submits that either submission made by the appellant’s counsel is not sustainable and the same has been examined by the ld. Single Judge in detail, needs no further indulgence of this Court. 12. We have heard counsel for the parties & perused the material available on record. 13. Indisputably no express provision has been pointed out to us under the Disciplinary Rules 1974 & other Service Rules of the Corporation which authorizes the Appointing Authority to continue the disciplinary enquiry after the delinquent employee has attained the age of superannuation & stood retired from service as in the instant case on 31.12.2014 and the Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (Supra) has held that in the absence of express provision to continue the disciplinary enquiry after the delinquent attained the age of superannuation itself stood automatically lapsed as a consequence thereof the employee became entitled for all consequential benefits including retiral benefits on attaining the age of superannuation with no impediment of the fate of the disciplinary enquiry which stands lapsed by fiction of law and this what the ld. Single Judge also considered in rejecting the contention of the appellant’s counsel. 14. So far as the submission made by the appellant’s counsel in upholding the order of penalty dt.18.04.1996 by subsequent order of punishment dt.12.02.2016 is also without substance for the reason that earlier order of penalty dt.18.04.1996 was quashed & set-aside by this court in the earlier proceedings, the delinquent was reinstated in service and after meeting out the defects pointed out in the earlier civil proceedings certainly it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law as in the instant case on 12.02.2016 but that in no manner could uphold the earlier order of penalty dt.18.04.1996 having retrospectively effected the earlier order of punishment dt.18.04.1996 and this what the ld. Single Judge also considered in detail in the impugned judgment. 15. After having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no error in the judgment of the ld. Single Judge which may call for our interference in the instant appeal. 16. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit & accordingly dismissed.