ORDER

1 These appeals by special leave are from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP Nos. 5629, 5630 and 5631 of 1984 dated 23-7-1993. The respondent, while was working as a Selection Grade Superintendent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, had attained his superannuation after reaching 58 years of age on 31-8-1980. The Chief Justice of the High Court had extended his tenure by two years and thereby he was to retire after the expiry of re-employment period on 31-8-1982. During his re-employment, it had come to the knowledge of the Chief Justice that the respondent had committed misconduct of embezzling the funds of the High Court. Therefore, he was kept under suspension on 17-12-1981 and a charge-sheet was issued after enlistment of three specific charges against the respondent on the grave charges of embezzlement. On expiry of two years he was allowed to retire. After conducting the enquiry by the District Judge and on receipt of the report in that behalf complying with clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution and the relevant statutory rules, the Chief Justice on the administrative side dismissed the respondent from service by his orders dated 7-6-1983 and 31-8-1983 with immediate effect. On appeal, as per the Rules, the Division Bench on the administrative side confirmed the order on 24-1-1984. The respondent challenged the orders in three Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5629, 5630 and 5631 of 1984. The Division Bench by judgment dated 23-7-1993 declared thus:

"For the reasons stated above CWP No. 5629 of 1984 is allowed. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner are declared void. The orders of dismissal from service dated 7-6-1983 passed by the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority dated 24-8-1984, which are under challenge in CWP Nos. 5630 and 5631 of 1984 are quashed. However, we leave it open to the disciplinary authority, which in this case is the Chief Justice of this Court, to take appropriate action under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, if he so desires." This order is now under challenge by leave of this Court.

2. Shri D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that it is settled law that once disciplinary proceedings have been initiated according to the Rules while the employee was in office, either before his attaining superannuation or expiry of the period of re-employment, the logical consequence would be that the departmental proceedings would be continued till the final orders are passed. Final order would be either exoneration of the delinquent of the charges or to pass an appropriate punishment in accordance with Rules. In this case, in view of the proved grave misconduct of the embezzlement of the funds of the High Court, the Chief Justice dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect from the date of the passing of the order. The Division Bench was not right in holding that the order is void. Consequential to the order of dismissal, appropriate action would be taken under the Pension Rules either under Rule 9 of the Central Rules or under Rule 2(2)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II Shri Sehgal, learned Senior Counsel for the delinquent, contended that though the disciplinary authority has power to continue the proceedings after the delinquent had attained superannuation and was allowed to retire, the Chief Justice had no power to pass the order of dismissal. It would be open only to pass appropriate order under the Pension Rules and no other.

3. The respective contentions give rise to the question whether the orders of dismissal is valid in law or what would be the appropriate orders that could be passed in the circumstances of the case. In D. V. Kapoor v. Union of India {(1990) 4 SCC 314 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 696 : (1990) 14 ATC 906} considering Rule 9 of the Central Pension Rules, this Court held that the initiation of the disciplinary procee