WP(C) 526/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing o f the departmental proceeding initiated against him by the Respondent Corporatio n. Be it stated herein that the petitioner has already retired from service on a ttaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.1.1999. The petitioner ha d earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6452 of 1999 and the same w as disposed of by order dated 9.5.2006 with the following direction :- I have considered the matter taking in to account the averments made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit. Whatever may be the allegation agai nst the petitioner, the Corporation cannot drag on the matter indefinitely. If t he petitioner fails to participate in the enquiry proceeding, it will be open fo r the Corporation to take a decision unilaterally. I dispose of the writ petitio n providing that the Corporation shall finalize the matter as expeditiously as p ossible considering the fact that the petitioner has already retired from servic e long back. According to the petitioner, nothing has been done in the matter and the respondents are simply dragging on the matter indefinitely depriving the petiti oner from his retirement and other service benefits. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated in paragraph-19 that the petitioner did not cooperate in the inquiry. The charge a gainst the petitioner is of causing pecuniary loss of house amount to the Corpor ation. Referring to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, it has been stated that the petitioner did not submit any written statement of defence and also di d not cooperate with the proceeding. It has been stated that the Respondent Corp oration has finalized the matter. I have heard Mr. TN Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation . Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti tioner having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation way ba ck in the year 1999, the Respondent Corporation should not continue with the enq uiry proceeding and, that too, without providing the petitioner any reasonable o pportunity of being heard. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits th at there being failure on the part of the petitioner to participate in the enqui ry proceeding, the enquiry had to conclude ex-parte. He submits that the respond ent Corporation has not passed any order view of the fact that the present proce eding is pending in this Court. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition stands dispos ed of directing the Respondent Corporation to pass appropriate order after provi ding the petitioner with the copy of the enquiry report by permitting the petiti oner to file representation on the same if he seeks to make. The enquiry exercis e shall be carried as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 30th April, 2011.