( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed for quashing the proceedings dated 12-9-1994 vide Memorandumno. Cl/pc/tspr/94and also the other proceedingsdated 15-5-1995 vide Order No. Cl/pc/tspr/95.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by the impugned proceedings dated 12-9-1994 the charges are framed against the petitioner for holding a departmental enquiry and vide proceedings dated 15-5-1995 the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed and these proceedings are illegalf since the proceedings are initiated after the retirement of the petitioner which is impermissible in law. Elaborating his contention, he stated that the petitioner retired with effect from 30-11-1993 and from the date of his retirement the relationship of the petitioner with the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust as Employer and Employee ceases to exist; therefore these proceedings cannot go on. He relied upon two judgments of this Court in C. Ramalinga Reddy vs. Non-Conventional Energy Dev. Corp, of a. P. Ltd. and K. Agarwal vs. Bhagwat Bai Montessori School. He further submitted that in both the judgments the learned single Judges of this Court have followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Assam and another vs. J. N. Roy biswar and in view of this law holding the filed the present impugned proceedings cannot be allowed to go on since the petitioner has already retired with effect from 30th November, 1993; therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

( 3 ) A detailed counter is filed by the respondent-Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Learned Counsel for the respondent, Ms. Sudha, relying on the counter filed by the respondent contended that the petitioner has been allowed to retire with effect from 30th November, 1993 on attaining the age of superannuation, with out prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against him. She further submitted that the order of retirement itself states that the petitioner was retired subject to the disciplinary proceedings already contemplated. Therefore, in terms of Rule 9 (2) (a) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be the proceedings under this Rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority even after retirement. She further stated that in terms of Rule 9 (2) (b) of the said rules, even where the departmental proceedings were not instituted before the retirement of an employee the same could be instituted within 4 years of the event or events. She further submitted that the CCS. (Pension) Rules, 1972 have been adopted under Visakhapatnam Port Employees (Classification, control and Appeal) Regulations, 1969. Thus, Rule9 of the CCS. (Pension) Rules would be applicable to the facts of this case, and even if the proceedings are taken as if instituted after the retirement, the same could be done within four years of the events that had happened. She further submitted that admittedly in this case the event had happened in the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and that would be within four years of the institution of the proceedings. In the instant case, the proceedings were instituted with a Memo along with the charge sheet and other particulars on 12-9-1994 and as such the proceedings are in time; therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. She further submitted that the two judgments of the learned single Judges of this Court are not applicable to the facts of this case in the sense that the Rules of the type involved in this case were not considered by those two learned Single Judges. She further submitted that in State of Assam vs. Padma Rum, which was reliea upon by the two learned Single Judges of this Court, the Supreme Court was interpreting the Rules framed in Assam particularly Rule 56 and in view of the sa id Rule the Hon ble Sup reme Court held that after retirement of a person on 6-1-1991 and after granting extention for three month