Bombay High Court
Shri Ganesh S/O Baliramji ... vs Vice Chairman And Managing ... on 24 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp4642.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4642 OF 2015
Shri Ganesh s/o Baliramji Sawarkar,
aged 59 years, occupation : Retired,
r/o 366, Jai Gurudeo Nagar, Manewada,
Nagpur - 27. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1)
Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Maharashtra Vahatook
Bhavan, Dr. Ananrao Nayar Marg,
Mumbai - 400 008.
2) General Manager (P&I.R),
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation,Maharashtra Vahatook
Bhavan, Dr. Ananrao Nayar Marg,
Mumbai - 400 008.
3) Regional Manager, Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation,
Regional Office, Near Bus Stand,
Ganeshpeth, Nagpur.
4) Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Divisional Office,
Nagpur, District Nagpur. ...... Respondents
-------------
Shri S.S. Kare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:35:06 :::
2 wp4642.15
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 24, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
Counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
respondent Corporation, dated 18/1/2014 withholding an increment.
According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the year 1981
and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on
30/9/2013. It is the case of the petitioner that though a charge-sheet was
served on him before his retirement, the enquiry in the charges levelled
against him was initiated and concluded after his retirement. It is stated
that the Service Regulations framed by the respondent Corporation do not
provide for continuance of a departmental enquiry after the retirement of
an employee. It is stated that a similar issue came up for consideration
before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1464/2007 and this Court has, by
the judgment dated 23/2/2010, allowed the writ petition filed by the
petitioner therein after holding that the respondent Corporation was not
entitled to continue the departmental enquiry against the petitioner
3 wp4642.15
therein after his retirement.
Shri Wankhede, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has
supported the action of the respondent Corporation. It is submitted that
since the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner before his retirement,
a departmental enquiry could be continued against him even after his
retirement. The learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.
and others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon (2008 (2) SCC 41) to
substantiate his submission. It is, however, not disputed that there is
nothing in the Service Regulations of the respondent Corporation that
permit the continuance of the departmental enquiry after the retirement of
an employee. The learned Counsel has sought for dismissal of the writ
petition.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that
the respondent Corporation was not justified in continuing with the
departmental enquiry against the petitioner after his retirement and
imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment by the impugned
order dated 18/1/2014. It is now well settled that a departmental enquiry
cannot be continued against an employee after his retirement, if the
Service Regulations do not provide so. Admittedly, the Service
Regulations of the respondent Corporation do not provide for continuance
of a departmental enquiry after the retirement of an employee. In the
4 wp4642.15
instant case, only a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner before his
retirement and the enquiry was initiated and concluded against him after
he retired on 30/9/2013. The issue involved in this case stands answered
in favour of the petitioner by the judgment dated 23/2/2010 in Writ
Petition No. 1464/2007. It is held by this Court in the said decision that
in the absence of any provision in the service conditions for continuance
of a departmental enquiry after retirement of an employee, no action
whatsoever is permissible against him. The aforesaid judgment squarely
applies to the facts of this case. The judgment in the case of U.P. State
Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others (supra) relied on by the learned
Counsel for the respondents is not applicable to the case in hand.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 18/1/2014 is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to release the withheld monetary benefits to the
petitioner within three months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
