( 1 ) RULE.

( 2 ) WITH the consent of the parties, this case has been heard and disposed of finally.

( 3 ) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioner, an employee of the respondent, National Seeds Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Corporation') praying inter alia for declaring the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against him after ordering his superannuation on 30th January, 2004, as illegal and beyond the competence of the respondent Corporation and for restraining the respondent Corporation from proceeding in respect of two charge sheets, both dated 7th April, 2003 proposing imposition of minor penalty and for major penalty respectively, as also for consequential relief of directions to the respondent Corporation to release the terminal benefits of the petitioner on account of gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pay etc. amounting to rs. 5,50,000/-approximately.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Corporation as a Seed Production Assistant on 26th December, 1966. On 8th March, 2002, the petitioner was placed under suspension in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings. On 7th April, 2003, the petitioner was served with two charge sheets, one issued under Rule 33 of the National Seeds Corporation Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Conduct Rules') proposing proceedings for minor penalty, and the other under Rule 31 of the Conduct Rules proposing proceedings for imposing major penalty. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the enquiry proceedings were being held as per the Conduct Rules, when in the meantime, an Office Order dated 30th January, 2004 was issued by the respondent Corporation, relieving the petitioner from service with effect from the afternoon of 30th January, 2004, but

"without prejudice to the right of the Corporation to take such action as deemed fit in regard to the terminal benefits due to Shri Rana (the petitioner) as a result of departmental proceeding already pending against him".

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforementioned Office Order, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP (C) No. 5479/2004 challenging the disciplinary 1 proceedings on the ground that the Conduct Rules did not permit continuation of the enquiry against an employee after his superannuation. However, the respondent Corporation placed on record the amended conduct Rules wherein Rule 46 was incorporated on the basis of an amendment to the Conduct Rules. In these circumstances, the petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the said writ petition which was granted to him, while reserving his right to file a substantive petition challenging the vires of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 46 of the Conduct Rules, as also raising other issues. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 18th May, 2004 challenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been superannuated on 30th January, 2004 and his terminal dues to the tune of rs. 11,70,237/- had already been released to him and in view of the fact that the petitioner had been permitted to superannuate, the statutory relationship between him and the respondent Corporation ceased to exist. He stated that it was no longer open to the respondent Corporation to have continued with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or withhold his terminal dues payable towards gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pay, revision etc. as Rule 46 of the Conduct Rules does not contemplate continuing with disciplinary proceedings in the absence of a relationship of an employer and employee between the parties.

( 7 ) IT was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings in respect of minor penalty proceedings as contemplated in one of the charge sheets was contrary to the provision of section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein