Superannuation and disciplinary proceedings cannot be withheld contrary to court directions when enquiry is delayed and incomplete.

Disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation could not be used to withhold retirement where the enquiry remained unfinished despite repeated court directions and extensions. The respondents' decision to place the employee under suspension and prevent retirement two days before superannuation was held contrary to earlier court orders and inconsistent with the governing instructions on retention beyond superannuation. The impugned order was also treated as having been passed beyond the scope of the contempt proceedings. The action to continue the proceedings in that manner was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were justified in withholding retirement and continuing disciplinary proceedings against the appellant after his date of superannuation, and whether the impugned orders could be sustained in view of the earlier orders of the Court and the delay in completion of the enquiry.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings had been initiated long before the appellant's retirement, but the enquiry was not completed despite repeated directions and extensions granted by the Court. The appellant was then placed under suspension and not permitted to retire just two days before superannuation, even though the proceedings had already suffered inordinate delay. The Court held that the respondents' action was contrary to the earlier orders of the Court and inconsistent with the governing instructions regulating retention of service beyond superannuation. The impugned order was also found to have been passed beyond the scope of the contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The respondents were not justified in preventing the appellant from retiring and continuing the proceedings in the manner adopted, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---