Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/707/2022 on 20 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2002-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSB/707/2022
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1. Mr. Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd.
4. Petitioner served as Executive Engineer in Uttarakhand Seeds & Tarai Development Corporation Ltd., Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. He retired from service on 31.05.2020. After his retirement an order was passed on 18.05.2022, whereby fine of ₹50,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and it was provided that it shall be recoverable from his pending dues.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a notice was issued to petitioner on 16.09.2021 by the Managing Director, asking him to show cause regarding unrealised sum of ₹68,83,643/- from the distributor of seeds. He submits that petitioner submitted to the reply to the show cause notice on 26.10.2021 in which he has stated that he is not responsible in any manner for the unrealised amount from the seed distributor and further that he has lodged FIR against the concerned 2026:UHC:2002-DB distributor. He further submits that in his reply, petitioner also stated that after retirement, master servant relationship is severed, therefore, no disciplinary action can be taken against him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner initially challenged the order dated 18.05.2022, whereby he was asked to deposit ₹50,000/- and during pendency of the writ petition, another order was passed by the Chairman, Uttarakhand Seeds & Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. on 07.11.2023, providing for recovery of ₹68,83,633/-, which has been challenged by amendment in the writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that law is well settled that in the absence of any enabling provisions in the applicable Rules, after retirement, employer does not have any disciplinary control over a retired employee. He submits that in the Rules applicable in the Corporation, there is no provision for continuing disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee. He submits that similar issue was dealt with by this Court in WPSB No. 407 of 2021, which was affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 23851 of 2025.
8. Relevant extract of the Division Bench judgment dated 14.06.2024 rendered in WPSB No. 407 of 2021 is reproduced below:-
"10. At the moment, we are not going into the question, as to whether Regulation 351-A can be invoked in respect of employees of the Corporation or not. The only question, which falls for our consideration is whether petitioners, who retired in 2017, before the Resolution to adopt Regulation 351-A was passed, would be covered by Regulation 351-A or 2026:UHC:2002-DB not. Our answer to the said question would be an absolute no. At the time of retirement of petitioners, there was nothing with the Corporation on the strength of which the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. Law is well settled that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement of an employee, unless there is some enabling provision in the Statute to do so. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 has held that disciplinary proceedings, even if initiated before retirement, would lapse with retirement of an employee and his retiral benefits cannot be withheld on the strength of pendency of a disciplinary enquiry. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.
7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."
11. The view expressed in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014) 7 SCC 260.
12. Learned counsel for Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that they committed financial irregularities by causing huge financial loss to the Corporation, therefore, the Corporation was justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.
13. We are not impressed by the said submission. Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. is a Government Company, which is owned and controlled by the State, therefore, it is a 'State' within meaning of the term under Article 12 of the Constitution. Rule of law is 2026:UHC:2002-DB bedrock of the constitutional systems and law may be harsh in some cases; but, it has to be followed irrespective of the extent of financial loss caused to the Corporation. We have been informed that criminal proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioners, therefore, the Criminal Court will examine the question, whether they are guilty or not."
9. Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel appearing for the employer/Corporation concedes that the issue involved in this writ petition is identical to the one decided in WPSB No. 407 of 2021.
10. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 14.06.2024 rendered in WPSB No. 407 of 2021. The orders dated 18.05.2022 and 07.11.2023, impugned in this writ petition, are quashed. The Competent Authority is directed to release all the outstanding dues of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.03.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, SINGH 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa 85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3 D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, ASWAL cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.20 06:29:48 -07'00'