Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1403 (ALL)

SHYAM LAL TIWARI v. U. P. STATE WAREHOUSING

2016-04-18

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for Corporation-opposite parties. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is being disposed of finally at admission stage itself. 3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of impugned order dated 8.7.2014 passed by opposite party No.2-Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow, whereby, recovery of Rs. 1,03,148/- has been ordered, as also the notice dated 2.7.2013 issued by Enquiry Officer. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner while working on the post of Junior Office Assistant attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2008 and after his retirement, a charge-sheet was prepared against the petitioner on 10.12.2009, which was never served upon him. Thereafter, a letter dated 20.6.2013 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was issued to the petitioner alongwith enquiry report requiring him to submit his reply within 15 days. As required vide order dated 8.7.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the petitioner submitted reply on 2.7.2013. Thereafter on same day, another letter dated 2.7.2013 was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing and producing evidence in support of his case with respect to causing loss to the Corporation. vide letter dated 19.5.2014, petitioner was further required to submit his reply within 15 days with respect to another inquiry report. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of the inquiry reports, leave encashment and security amount of the petitioner has been withheld. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while pointing out defects in the impugned order vehemently argued that in the U.P. State Warehousing Staff Regulations, there is no provision of conducting inquiry or continue inquiry after retirement of an employee. Further, provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations also do not apply to the employees of the State Warehousing Corporation. 6. Further, provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations also do not apply to the employees of the State Warehousing Corporation. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it may be mentioned that the controversy as involved in the instant writ petition has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014)7 SCC 260 , wherein the Apex Court relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC and others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 , has held that no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in the case of such employees after retirement. In the case of Chatter Sen v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 42967 of 2015 decided on 3.8.2015) the petitioner, who was also an employee of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Challenged the order dated 19.8.2010 whereby damages were sought to be recovered from the petitioner, who had attained the age of superannuation and retirement from service much earlier on 31.12.2006. The learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari’s case [supra] held that no departmental proceedings can be initiated or continued against the petitioner after his retirement and quashed the order of punishment. 7. In view of the above-said settled legal position, the impugned order of punishment/recovery passed against the petitioner after retirement from the Corporation suffers from the legal infirmities and cannot be sustained. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow is hereby quashed. 9. The petitioner will be entitled to payment of entire leave encashment and other unpaid amount and such payment shall be made by respondents to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.