Allahabad High Court
Devashish Das vs Uttar Pradesh State Industrial ... on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 539 of 2020
Petitioner :- Devashish Das
Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shagun K. Saran
Counsel for Respondent :- Anuj Pratap Singh,Swapnil Kumar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, advocate, holding brief of Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) in substantive capacity on 18.06.1981. During the course of service, he was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and ultimately retired from service on 31.05.2017 after attaining the age of superannuation. She next submitted that while putting him under superannuation vide office order dated 31.05.2017, he was also served a same dated charge sheet along with that. It has also been mentioned in the charge sheet that all post retiral dues shall be subject to the decision of disciplinary proceeding initiated against him. She submitted that service of petitioner is governed by the provisions of U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Employees Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and further disciplinary enquiry is governed by UPSIDC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1998-99 (hereinafter referred to as "DA Rules"). While assailing the impugned order, apart from many other grounds, she firmly submitted that as per D.A. Rules, there is no provision to initiate disciplinary proceeding after retirement and continue the same. Once, petitioner attained the age of superannuation, no enquiry proceeding may be either initiated or continued against him. Therefore, notice/ charge sheet dated 31.05.2017 is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in Writ A No. 26825 of 2009 (Kishan Lal Pathak Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. and another) dated 24.07.2014 and Writ A No. 6237 of 2022 (Brahamnad Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) dated 15.07.2022.
Sri Sudhanshu Kumar, advocate, holding brief of Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the date of retirement and disciplinary proceeding has been initiated when the petitioner was in service, therefore, same has to be continued to its logical ending.
Being confronted by the Court, learned counsel for the respondents could not demonstrate any provision in DA Rules, which permits the service of charge sheet on the date of retirement and further continuance of disciplinary proceeding thereafter.
I have considered the rival submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records as well as Rules annexed alongwith this petition. From perusal of DA Rules, it is apparent that there is no provision to conduct disciplinary proceeding after retirement or in case of initiation prior to retirement, for its continuance after retirement. This issue has also been considered by this Court in the matters of Kishan Lal Pathak (supra) and Brahamnad Tyagi (supra) and relying upon different judgments, Court has taken the very same view that once there is no Rule to conduct enquiry after retirement, proceeding so initiated or continued after retirement, is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. In the present case also, undisputedly, charge sheet has been served on the date of retirement, therefore, in lack of Rules, no disciplinary proceeding can be permitted to continue. Therefore, impugned notice/ charge sheet is bad and liable to be set aside.
Under such facts and circumstances of the case, impugned notice/ charge sheet dated 31.05.2017 is hereby quashed and writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to pay all post retiral dues to the petitioner, maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In case gratuity is due, the same shall be paid alongwith interest as provided under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and remaining dues, if any, shall be paid at the rate of 8% per annum from due date to the date of actual payment.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022
Arvind
