JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. The sole question of law that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether petitioner could have been inflicted with a major penalty of termination/dismissal/removal from service after attaining the age of superannuation even in the face of the fact that certified standing orders framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 are absolutely silent on this point. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1946, inasmuch as, services of the petitioner while in service being governed under the certified Standing orders, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be invoked to enforce the same. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner who was appointed in the year 1981 as a helper and later on received promotions, finally came to be retired from service of respondents establishment on 22nd February, 2017 as a Senior Technical Assistant Grade VI (production). 4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the matter of a complaint made by a third party and the complaint was that, while petitioner applying for employment in the year 1981, he had submitted a transfer certificate, in which he showed himself as class VIIIth passed, whereas transfer certificate was allegedly a forged document. A report was called for from the District Basic Education Officer which was submitted on 23rd July, 2016 in which it came to be reported that transfer certificate did not appear to be genuine one as per report of the principal. However, on further verification a second report suggested that transfer certificate was genuine one and that there was no dispute regarding the same. Two reports being contradictory to each other, respondent establishment called for a third report which was submitted on 2nd August, 2016 and on the basis of same an in housing enquiry was got conducted by District Basic Education Officer and in this report, it came to be reported that transfer certificate did not appear to be a genuine document. Accordingly, disciplinary proceeding was instituted and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 27.8.2016 almost 34 years after the petitioner was appointed imputing with the charge that he obtained employment by submitting forged document. Accordingly, disciplinary proceeding was instituted and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 27.8.2016 almost 34 years after the petitioner was appointed imputing with the charge that he obtained employment by submitting forged document. Petitioner did submit reply as enquiry proceeded with but the enquiry could be completed and report could be submitted on 12.12.2017 only after petitioner got superannuated. On the basis of the enquiry report petitioner was served with a show-cause notice. 5. Petitioner challenged the enquiry before Delhi High Court taking the plea that since he had retired and the standing orders did not provide for disciplinary proceedings to continue after retirement of the employee, hence the enquiry report and the proceedings pursuant thereto was liable to be set aside. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 12.3.2018 provided the petitioner to submit reply before the competent authority itself and competent authority was directed to look into his reply and pass appropriate orders. Petitioner submitted reply questioning the continuance of proceeding even after his retirement, however, disciplinary authority rejected the same on the ground that since the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea of the petitioner to quash the proceedings, this chapter was closed. Petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court against the said order and this Court remitted the matter vide order dated 8.2.2019, directing petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority and it was left open for him to take such plea regarding jurisdiction of the authority to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee and in the event if petitioner took such a plea, the same was directed to be considered. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the same ground that since Delhi High Court had already rejected petitioner's plea regarding continuance of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, so it was not open to question the same. Hence this petition. 6. So far as issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, I am of the view that since there is no factual controversy involved in the case that may require any reference inasmuch as it also not being a case were enforcement of any provision of standing orders is sought, the writ petition was rightly entertained and now case can be decided on merits as pleadings have been exchanged. 7. 7. The only issue is as to whether standing orders did provide to meet such any eventuality as has cropped up in the present case and if not, how far employer is justified to continue with disciplinary proceedings against a superannuated employee. 8. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and others v. Abahi Kumar and others passed in Appeal (Civil) 1397 of 2001, in which the Supreme Court has held thus: ''The selected candidates, who have been appointed, are now in employment as Motor Vehicle Inspectors for over a decade. Now that they have worked in such posts for a long time, necessarily they would have acquired the requisite experience. Lack of experience, if any, at the time of recruitment is made good now. Therefore, the new exercise ordered by the High Court will only lead to anomalous results. Since we are disposing of these matters on equitable consideration, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that their cases for appointment should also be considered. It is not clear whether there is any vacancy for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. If that is so, unless any one or more of the selected candidates are displaced, the cases of the contesting respondents cannot be considered. We think that such adjustment is not feasible for practical reasons. We have extended equitable considerations to such selected candidates who have worked in the post for a long period, but the contesting respondents do not come in that class. The effect of our conclusion is that appointments made long back pursuant to a selection need not be disturbed. Such a view can be derived from several decisions of this Court including the decisions in Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana and others, 1979 (1) SCC 168 ; District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655 ; and H.C.Puttaswamy and others v. The Honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and others, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are.'' 9. (2) SCC 421. Therefore, we must let the matters lie where they are.'' 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Sri Ankush Tandon submits that there is judgment that of course, provides that such proceedings can be continued even after retirement but he very fairly concedes that the order of termination from service cannot be passed. 10. vide paragraph 18 to 24 of the judgment in the case of Anant R.Kulkrni v. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 , Supreme Court has held thus: ''18. This Court in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA and others, AIR 2011 SC 2112 , examined the issue, and held that the competence of an authority to hold an enquiry against an employee who has retired, depends upon the statutory rules which govern the terms and conditions of his service, and while deciding the said case, reliance was placed on various earlier judgments of this Court including B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1978 SC 1109 ; Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and another, (2007) 9 SCC 15 ; and UCO Bank and another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor. 19. In State of Assam and others v. Padma Ram Borah, AIR 1965 SC 473 , a Constitution Bench of this Court held that it is not possible for the employer to continue with the enquiry after the delinquent employee stands retired. The Court observed : (AIR 475 para 7) ''According to the earlier order of the State Government itself, the service of the respondent had come to an end on March 31, 1961. The State Government could not by unilateral action create a fresh contract of service to take effect from April 1, 1961. If the State Government wished to continue the service of the respondent for a further period, the State Government should have issued a notification before March 31, 1961.'' (Emphasis added) While deciding the said issue, the Court placed reliance on the judgment in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India in Council. 20. In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214 , this Court observed: (SCC p. 32, para 12) ''12. There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant it must be done before he retires as provided by the said rule. 20. In State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214 , this Court observed: (SCC p. 32, para 12) ''12. There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant it must be done before he retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein.'' 21. In Kirti Bhusan Singh v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1986 SC 2116 , this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 678-79, para 6) ''6.... We are of the view that in the absence of such a provision which entitled the State Government to revoke an order of retirement....... which had become effective and final, the order passed by the State Government revoking the order of retirement should be held as having been passed without the authority of law and is liable to be set aside. It, therefore, follows that the order of dismissal passed thereafter was also a nullity.'' 22. In Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, AIR 1999 SC 1841 , this Court observed: (SCC pp. 668-69, para 7) ''... There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. 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 on retirement.'' 23. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, this Court dealt with a case wherein statutory corporation had initiated proceedings for recovery of the financial loss from an employee after his retirement from service. This Court approved such a course observing that in the case of retirement, master and servant relationship continue for grant of retrial benefits. This Court approved such a course observing that in the case of retirement, master and servant relationship continue for grant of retrial benefits. The proceedings for recovery of financial loss from an employee is permissible even after his retirement and the same can also be recovered from the retrial benefits of the said employee. 24. Thus, it is evident from the above, that the relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are the determining factors as to whether and in what manner the domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Generally, if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but nature of punishment would change. The punishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed.'' 11. In such above view of the matter, it would be a futile exercise to ask for the petitioner to raise reference because this legal issue can be answered in this petition itself and the establishment being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, I proceed to decide this petition on merits. 12. It is a settled legal position that no disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement unless and until rules governing service conditions provided otherwise. 13. The only issue is as to whether the judgment of Delhi High Court will come in the way of granting relief to the petitioner in the present case or not. What I find is that in the order of Delhi High Court, it was directed that petitioner's reply will be considered and petitioner did raise specific point in his reply which was not considered and same was brushed aside in view of judgment of the Delhi High Court. I am not convinced with the finding returned by the authority on this point. The judgment of High Court did not close the chapter, it left it open instead, for the authority to take decision on this point, if it is raised in reply. 14. Besides above, after decision was taken by the appropriate appellate authority, petitioner had preferred an appeal and this Court in writ petition No. 2037 of 2019 had again directed for the appellate authority to consider the jurisdictional aspect of the matter if raised in appeal. 14. Besides above, after decision was taken by the appropriate appellate authority, petitioner had preferred an appeal and this Court in writ petition No. 2037 of 2019 had again directed for the appellate authority to consider the jurisdictional aspect of the matter if raised in appeal. This order had never been challenged by the respondents in appeal in this Court or in Supreme Court. Thus mandate contained in the order of this Court dated 8.2.2019 was binding upon the appellate authority. The appellate authority having not considered the same, the order passed by the appellate authority is also not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. 15. Now this matter can again be remitted to the appellate authority to reconsider but since even disciplinary authority had assigned the same reason to reject the plea of the petitioner, which is not sustainable as this legal issue has already been met and answered by the Supreme Court in its various decisions, it would be absolutely a futile exercise to remit the matter to the appellate authority. The legal position is settled enough that no disciplinary proceedings can be continued against the employee after retirement unless and until rules governing such proceedings provided for the same and even if they are continued then major penalties like termination or dismissal cannot be inflicted upon a retired employee. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not show any provision of law that permits the authorities to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee and to impose penalty in the nature it is awarded. 16. From the perusal of the order of this Court as well as the order of the Supreme Court a three decade old issue of entry into the service of establishment should not have been reopened at the fag end of service career of an employee. 17. Besides the above further I find that a number of enquiries one after another got conducted and while one enquiry said that original documents were not available, the other enquiry said that the document supplied could not be appreciated as certain extracts of an old torn register were only available. Petitioner has worked for so many years with the establishment and also received promotions obviously for his good work and conduct and there has never been any complaint against him regarding the same. 18. Petitioner has worked for so many years with the establishment and also received promotions obviously for his good work and conduct and there has never been any complaint against him regarding the same. 18. One must understand that an employee has toiled for over three decades in the service of the establishment and there being no complaint with regard to work and conduct of such an employee, he does not deserve to be reawarded with penalty of dismissal/removal from service just for a document submitted at the time of entry into service, verification of which was not possible as the original records got weeded out and destroyed with the passage of time. While it may be true that furnishing a forged document would not justify the appointment obtained on the said basis but for that appropriate time would be a reasonable one when proper verification of such a document could be done. Again the question is that at whose instance enquiry is set up, is equally important. It is the duty of those who are responsible for making selection and appointment to verify all the credentials of a candidate before giving appointment but once after due verification entry is given, then it should be only an exceptional circumstance to annul the appointment. A third party complaint should normally not be entrained as of compulsion. Establishment must safeguard its employees' interest first while embarking upon an enquiry at the instance of a third partly complaint which may often be made with ulterior and illmotives. 19. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 17.4.2018 passed by respondent No. 4 awarding the petitioner punishment of dismissal from service and the order dated 12.6.2019 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the appeal are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits.