JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court was a Conductor in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’). He is aggrieved by an order dated 18.10.2012 passed by Managing Director of the Corporation by which the earlier punishment order dated 21.08.2012 has been recalled and it has been directed that a fresh enquiry be conducted on the charges leveled against the petitioner and the report thereafter be submitted. 2. Brief background of the case is that the petitioner was plying a bus of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation from Lucknow to Pithoragarh on 29.02.2012 when during checking it was found that twenty passengers were traveling in the bus without ticket and consequently the petitioner was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On enquiry, however, it was found that though there were twenty passengers without tickets but most of them were allegedly relatives of employees of the Corporation and Enquiry Officer has further said that whether the amount was taken from these passengers is not clear. In the enquiry report it has further come that the petitioner was indisposed and further only 18 months of his service were left, and hence a lenient view was adopted and as a measure of punishment the petitioner was to deposit an amount of Rs.26,160/-, which is equivalent to the increment in his four years of salary along with 10 time amounts liable to be received from 20 passengers which comes to Rs.15,030/- This was done vide order dated 21.08.2012. Thereafter, Rs.41,190/- was also recovered, which was directed to be deducted @ Rs.3,000/- per month from his salary. According to the petitioner, meanwhile he reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.09.2013. All the same, his post retirement benefits were not being given to him. The reason being that prior to it the impugned order was passed stating that the order dated 21.08.2012 is in violation of the Boards Order dated 27.03.2012, which has been annexed as annexure No. CA2 to the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed by respondent says that it is in violation of condition No. 9 which says that the appointing authority shall forthwith suspend the petitioner who was carrying passengers without tickets and thereafter from taking permission from the Divisional Manager and the appointing authority shall give a charge-sheet to the employee and proceed further. 3. The counter affidavit filed by respondent says that it is in violation of condition No. 9 which says that the appointing authority shall forthwith suspend the petitioner who was carrying passengers without tickets and thereafter from taking permission from the Divisional Manager and the appointing authority shall give a charge-sheet to the employee and proceed further. 3. According to the petitioner, it is contended, inter alia, that the respondent has violated the rules, inasmuch as, the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant General Manager, who is the appointing authority of petitioner. In other words, the Enquiry Officer and the Punishing Officer is the same person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 64 of the U.P. Road Transport Corporation Regulation 1981, which reads as under:- “64. Procedure for awarding major penalties-(1) Without prejudice to the right to terminate the service in accordance with regulation 29 no order other than order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal court of dismissal, removal or reduction in a rank, which includes, reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale but excludes the reversion to a lower post of a person who is officiating on a higher post, shall be passed against an employee unless he has been affording adequate opportunity of defending himself. (2) The ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which along with the evidence proposed to be relied upon in support of the charge shall be communicated to the person charged and he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether a desires to examine or cross-examine any witness and whether he desires to be heard in person. He shall also be informed that, in case he does not file a written statement of his defence, it will be presumed that he has none to furnish and orders will be passed ex parte. (3) If, the employee desires or the Enquiry Officer considers it necessary, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence shall be heard as the Enquiry Officer considers necessary. (3) If, the employee desires or the Enquiry Officer considers it necessary, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such allegations as are not admitted. At the enquiry such oral evidence shall be heard as the Enquiry Officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call or examine any witness. (4) The proceedings shall contain sufficient record of evidence and the statement of findings and grounds thereof. The Enquiry Officer may also separately from the proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the penalty to be imposed. The proceedings and the record shall be forwarded to the appointing authority. (5) The appointing authority shall pass such orders as he considers proper in the case of record and report.” 4. So far as the challenge to the power of the Managing Director is concerned, as he is the authority who has passed the order dated 18.10.2012 whereby the earlier order dated 21.08.2012 has been recalled and a fresh enquiry directed to be initiated against the petitioner. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the said authority fails, as Managing Director has such powers under the amended regulations. However, the only ground taken by the Managing Director for reviewing the earlier order dated 21.08.2012 is that in the earlier round of disciplinary proceedings, the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by the Managing Director has not been followed. 5. The order dated 27.03.2012 has been annexed as annexure No. CA2 to the counter affidavit, which says as to what measure be taken in case of checking it was found that unauthorized passengers have been taken by the Driver and Conductor. In a case where such passengers are more than five, it says for taking ten times amount to the fare as penalty, the appointing authority will suspend the concerned Driver and Conductor and attach them to another region and after giving him charge-sheet disciplinary proceedings be initiated against them. According to the Managing Director in its order dated 18.10.2012, this order i.e. 27.03.2012 has not been followed. 6. According to the Managing Director in its order dated 18.10.2012, this order i.e. 27.03.2012 has not been followed. 6. The fact, however, remains that the incident for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated occurred on 29.02.2012 while petitioner was carrying passengers from Lucknow to Pithoragarh, therefore, the order dated 27.03.2012 will have no application to the said incident, as it will have only prospective implication. 7. In view thereof, the order dated 18.10.2012 is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that the earlier order dated 21.08.2012 revives. Any proceedings, which has so far taken place, after the impugned order shall not be given effect to and punishment which has been given by the authority concerned vide order dated 21.08.2012 shall stand. Since the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation and retired from service, the petitioner shall only be given subsistence allowance, but thereafter shall be given all his retirement dues, including gratuity etc. in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed.