Allahabad High Court
Dharam Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 July, 2022
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9559 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dharam Pal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kunal Shah Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Narendra Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011 and after his retirement, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide orders dated 16.07.2013, 16.06.2014, and 16.07.2014 by respondent no. 2. He next submitted that there is no provision under the applicable service rules, which permits the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated and continued after the superannuation of an employee. Once the contract of service itself has come to an end, in absence of any enabling clause, such action is not permissible. He next submitted that in the similar set of facts of the same department, similar order was passed against Sudama Prasad Baluni, which was challenged by him before this Court in Writ-A No. 20633 of 2019 (Sudama Prasad Baluni Vs. State of U.P. and another). The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2021, which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, and Sri Akhilesh Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed against him, after he has attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011. It is submitted that there exists no provision under the applicable service rules, which permits the disciplinary proceedings to be initiated and continued, after the superannuation of an employee. Once the contract of service itself has come to an end, in absence of any enabling clause, such action is not permissible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.33886 of 2015, wherein following orders were passed on 29.5.2015:-
"Virendra Kumar is submitting before this Court is that he has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2011 but in spite of the fact, though U.P. State Warehousing Corporation has got no authority to undertaken disciplinary proceedings, has proceeded to pass impugned orders dated 10.10.2014 and 18.10.2014 respectively based on the same. In view of this, this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
Sri Shivam Yadav has appeared and very fairly stated before us that since the Corporation has not at all proceeded to incorporate Article 351 of Civil Service Regulation and in absence of the same there is no such provision in the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation to undertake any proceeding in question.
Once after attaining the age of superannuation, the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation does not authorize the authorities of the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation to undertake any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in view of this, any proceedings that have been undertaken against the petitioner after 30.07.2011 cannot be accepted to be valid proceedings and the proceedings are null and void. Once there is no authority and jurisdiction to undertake the proceedings, then orders dated 10.10.2014 and 18.10.2014 respectively passed by the Managing Director of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation is not sustainable.
Consequently, the orders 10.10.2014 and 18.10.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.
In case the amount in question has already been recovered the same is directed to be returned and in case outstanding dues is pending the same shall also be finalized preferably within a period of next three months from today."
It is not in dispute that facts of this case are identical, and the aforesaid decision applies in the petitioner's case as well.
Consequently, order dated 16.7.2013, insofar as it relates to present petitioner, are quashed. The respondents shall forthwith compute the withheld amount of leave encashment and security, lying with them, and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner along-with 6% interest from the date such amount has fallen due.
The writ petition stands disposed of."
He next submitted that facts of the present case is similar, therefore, this petition may also be disposed of on the same terms and conditions for which learned counsels for the respondents have no objection.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 01.12.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 20633 of 2019.
Order Date :- 6.7.2022 Rmk.