Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Manu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

2. Petitioner by the instant writ petition is assailing the appellate order dated 19 May 2012, affirming the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, whereby, his pension has been reduced by 3%. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. Petitioner was served charge-sheet to which petitioner replied, however, during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28 February 2011 from the post of Executive Engineer. The sole ground pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner is unsustainable for the reason that under the rules and regulations applicable to the servants of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) departmental enquiry cannot be continued after retirement of the employee. In other words, there is no rule conferring power upon the Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement. Petitioner in support of his su