JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - Heard Mr.G. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.K.Mohanty(A), learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This writ petition involves a challenge to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure-7 thereby directing for realization of amount from the entitlement of the petitioner. The impugned order has been challenged on the sole premises that not only the proceeding was initiated after premature retirement of the petitioner but recovery has also been made after the superannuation of the petitioner on the basis of disciplinary proceeding admittedly initiated after superannuation of the petitioner. Referring to a judgment of this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.10638 of 2004, Sri Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court for extending the benefit of the disposed of writ petition to the case at hand. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand while objecting the claim of the petitioner submits that since the dispute involves recovery while the petitioner was in service, there is no prohibition in either initiating the proceeding after superannuation or implementation of any such order involving the disciplinary authority. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that admittedly the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated after petitioner has been prematurely superannuated. Law has been settled holding that no proceeding can be initiated after the superannuation of an employee unless there is any specific rule in that regard governing the employer or employee. From the pleadings and submissions of the respective advocates, this Court finds opposite party is not in a position to demonstrate any provision involving the parties to undertake disciplinary proceeding after superannuation of the employee takes place. Further for the cessation of the employer and employee relationship after the premature superannuation of the petitioner, this Court is also of the view that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the superannuation of an employee. 5. For the reasons indicated herein above and for the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10638 of 2004 applies to the case of the petitioner at hand, this Court interfering in the impugned order at Annexure-7 sets aside the same. Writ petition accordingly succeeds. There shall be no order as to cost.