JUDGMENT : Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 81344 of 2017 : Heard Sri Jagannath Maurya, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar for the respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Vikas Budhwar for the second respondent. 2. The appellant prays for condoning the 201 days' delay caused in filing the special appeal. The respondents have not filed any reply opposing the prayer till today. 3. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. Order on Appeal : 5. The U.P. State Employees Welfare Corporation, a respondent in the original petition has preferred the instant appeal seeking to assail the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge on 16 May 2016 as also the order dated 6 February 2017 whereby a Review Petition preferred by it has also been rejected. The respondent-petitioner had instituted writ proceedings seeking quashing of orders dated 30 December 2015 and 28 January 2016. By the aforementioned two orders the respondent had inflicted the punishment of recovery of Rs.6,79,884/- from the retiral dues of the respondent-petitioner. The challenge to the said order itself was primarily based upon the ground that the punishment came to be inflicted after the superannuation of the respondent-petitioner on 30 June 2010. Before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that although a charge sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceedings instituted while the respondent-petitioner was still in service, no final orders were passed before the retirement of the respondent-petitioner. The learned Single Judge in the above backdrop proceeded to initially allow the writ petition on 16 May 2016 noting the legal position which was not disputed by the counsel for the appellants that no provision of law empowered the Corporation to continue disciplinary proceedings after the superannuation of an employee or to inflict an order of punishment after the retirement of the officer/employee concerned. The Corporation thereafter preferred a Review Petition contending that in terms of Regulation 72 of the Statutory Service Regulations enforced in the Corporation, the provisions of Regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulations stood adopted and were applicable. The Corporation thereafter preferred a Review Petition contending that in terms of Regulation 72 of the Statutory Service Regulations enforced in the Corporation, the provisions of Regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulations stood adopted and were applicable. In view thereof, it was contended that since the provisions of Regulation 351A applied it was open to the appellants to continue and conclude the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated while the respondent was still in service and to inflict the punishment of recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation from the retiral dues of the petitioner-respondent. The learned Single Judge has however noted that the jurisdiction conferred by Regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulations were never invoked or set in motion by the Corporation while the petitioner-respondent was still in service. It was accordingly held that since at no stage any notice was issued by the Corporation invoking the provisions of Regulation 351A, the action could not be sustained and consequently the Review Petition was also dismissed. Before us the learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. And Others 2008 (3) ALJ 150 to submit that it was open to the appellants to inflict the punishment upon the respondent-petitioner even though he had retired from service. 6. Having carefully perused the judgment in Bhagwati Prasad Verma, we fail to find any principle of law enunciated therein which may carry the case of the appellants any further. Bhagwati Prasad Verma was concerned with the issue of whether deduction from gratuity could be made and in that connection reference was made to Regulation 351A to note that the said Regulation stood restricted to recoveries from pension. In the facts of the present case, it was not disputed either before the learned Single Judge or even before us that the Corporation never invoked the provisions of Regulation 351A prior to inflicting the punishment upon the respondent-petitioner. The learned counsel for the appellants was also unable to draw our attention to any provision in the regulations applicable in the Corporation which may have empowered them to continue the employee in service for the purposes of conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement or to inflict a punishment after the superannuation of an officer or employee. The learned counsel for the appellants was also unable to draw our attention to any provision in the regulations applicable in the Corporation which may have empowered them to continue the employee in service for the purposes of conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement or to inflict a punishment after the superannuation of an officer or employee. The law in this connection stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow (2014) 7 SCC 260 wherein it was held as follows : "6. An occasion came before this Court to consider the continuance of disciplinary inquiry in similar circumstance in Bhagirathi Jena case [Bhagirathi Jena v. Orisaa State Financila Corpn. (1999) 3 SCC 666 and it was laid down as follows: "5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3) (c) of Regulation 44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It reads thus : "44. (3)(c) When the employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and make a specific order : (i) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and (ii) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period on duty." 6. It will be noticed from the above said regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the above said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95 there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95 there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 7. In a subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation case [U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. L.P. Rai, (2007) 7 SCC 81 ] on facts, the disciplinary proceeding against employee was quashed by the High Court since no opportunity of hearing was given to him in the inquiry and the management in its appeal before this Court sought for grant of liberty to hold a fresh inquiry and this Court held that charges levelled against the employee were not minor in nature, and therefore, it would not be proper to foreclose the right of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry only on the ground that the employee has since retired from the service and accordingly granted the liberty sought for by the management. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision in Bhagirathi Jena case [Bhagirathi Jena v. Orissa State Financial Corpn., (1999) 3 SCC 666 was brought to the notice of the Court and no contention was raised pertaining to the provisions under which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and as such no ratio came to be laid down. In our view the said decision cannot help the respondents herein. 8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits." 8. Accordingly and in view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal which shall consequently stand dismissed.