IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1582 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/09/2008 in WP NO : 22667 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Electronic COrporation Of India Ltd., rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director,Moula Ali, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500062 2 The Chairman & Managing Director,Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., Moula Ali,ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500062 ..... APPELLANTS AND P.Prakash S/o.Balraj, R/o.3-96,Sumithra Nagar,Kukatpally village Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants : MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE Counsel for the Respondent : MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU The Court made the following : ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Heard the learned advocates. Being aggrieved by an interim order dated 12th September 2008, passed in W.P.M.P.No.28805 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.22667 of 2006, this appeal has been filed by the employer of the respondent. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the respondent-employee, which have not been completed till today, though the respondent-employee had retired on 31st October 2005. It was a specific case of the respondent-original petitioner-employee that after superannuation, it was not open to the employer to continue any disciplinary proceedings against him, because, there are no rules, which permit continuation of departmental proceedings after superannuation. It has been submitted that upon superannuation, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end, and, therefore, it is not open to the appellant-employer to continue the proceedings, and, in the circumstances, the respondent-original petitioner was entitled to get all retirement benefits. Looking to the facts of the case, the learned single Judge has passed the aforesaid interim order, whereby it has been directed that 50% of retirement benefits be paid to the respondent-original petitioner. At the time of hearing of this appeal, we asked a specific question to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-employer whether it was open to the employer to continue the proceedings even after superannuation of the respondent-employee and if so, he should point out relevant rule or regulation permitting the employer to continue the same. The learned advocate could not show any provision, but he only pointed out that the respondent-employee had procured employment by presenting an incorrect caste certificate, and, therefore, the appointment given to him was bad in law. In the circumstances, according to him, the respondent- employee is not entitled to retirement benefits. The learned advocate could not deny the fact that till today, the inquiry proceedings are still not over. In the aforesaid circumstances, where there are no Rules permitting the appellant-employer to continue departmental proceedings even after superannuation of the respondent-employee, we do not see any reason to entertain this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that writ petition No.22667 of 2006 be notified for final hearing in the first week of March 2009. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 3rd December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr