Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32135 of 2017 Petitioner :- Rajveer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diptiman Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5.
Petitioner was an employee of respondent no.5. He attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2017. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated during the service of the petitioner. But the same was not concluded and the petitioner stood retired on 28.2.2017. Thereafter, on 15.4.2017, petitioner moved an application for payment of his retiral dues and further requested that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner may be dropped. Despite the said fact neither the representation of the petitioner for release of retiral dues was decided nor the disciplinary proceedings were dropped.
Sri Diptiman Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of Apex Court in case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow And Others, 2014 (7) SCC 260.
Per contra, Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 to 5 submits that the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 had been amended and the amendment has been published on 20.5.2017, by which now the disciplinary proceedings can be continued even after the retirement of the employee. He has invited the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit so filed and Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit at Page 18 is the amended service regulation.
Refuting the submission of Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri Diptiman Singh, Counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner had already retired on 28.2.2017 and the regulation came into effect from 20.5.2017 which are prospective in nature and as such the benefit of the judgment in case of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) cannot be denied.
Considering the rival submissions so made, I find that the argument made by Sri Diptiman Singh, Counsel for the appellant has substance and as the regulations which were amended came into existence after publication on 20.5.2017 as such the same are not applicable on the petitioner who had already attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2017. Further the judgment of Apex Court clearly held that neither the enquiry can be initiated or continued after retirement of an employee.
In view of the judgment of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra), the disciplinary proceedings pending before the respondents is hereby quashed and respondents are directed to release the entire retiral dues of the petitioner.
In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 28.2.2019 S. Singh