DEV PRAKASH TEWARIversusU.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 11


                 DEV PRAKASH TEWARI                           A
                             v.
 U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD,
                   LUCKNOW & ORS
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 5848-5849 of 2014)
                                                              B
                      JUNE 30, 2014
        [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

      Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Employees Service
Regulations, 1975: Disciplinary proceedings - Continuance C
of, after superannuation - Held: There is no provision in the
Service Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of
disciplinary proceeding after retirement nor there is any
provision stating that in case misconduct is established a
deduction could be made from retiral benefits - In the instant D
case, the appellant retired from service - Therefore, after his
retirement there was no authority vested with respondent for
continuing disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of
imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the
appellant- In the absence of such an authority it must be held E
that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to
get full retiral benefits - Service law - Disciplinary
proceedings.

      The appellant was working as Assistant Engineer
with Respondent No. 2. A disciplinary proceeding was          F
initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Employees Service regulations, 1975 and after enquiry,
he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved, the appellant
filed a writ petition. The High Court quashed the
disciplinary proceeding on the ground that inquiry was        G
vitiated as no opportunity was given to the appellant to
cross-examine the witness and, therefore, there was
violation of principle of natural justice. The High Court
directed for reinstatement and payment of back wages
                            11                                H
    12      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A and granted liberty to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry
  in accordance with law. Fresh disciplinary proceeding
  was conducted and while it was pending, the appellant
  reached the age of superannuation and retired from
  service.
B
         The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the
    continuance of disciplinary proceedings after his
    retirement. The High Court held that there was no ground
    to interf(ere with the disciplinary proceeding and directed
    to complete it within 4 months. The instant appeal was
c   filed challenging the order of the High Court.

         Allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1. The High Court while quashing the earlier
o disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of
  principll:ls of natural justice in its order dated 10.1.2006
  granted liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance
  with the Regulations. The appellant w.as reinstated in
  service on 26.4.2006 and fresh disciplinary proceeding
E was initiated on 7.7.2006 and while that was pending, the
  appellant attained the age of superannuation and retired
  on 31.3.2009. There is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh
  Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, for
  initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after
F retirement of the appellant nor there is any provision
  stating that in case misconduct is established a
  deduction could be made from his retiral benefits. [Para
  6] [15-D-G]
       2. Once the appellant had retired from service on
G 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
H lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral
DEV PRAKASH TEWARI v. U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL          13
              SER. BOARD, LUCKNOW

benefits. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, i.t is the           A
appellant would have to get the balance of the
emoluments payable to him. The respondents are
directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable
to the appellant and also to pay all the retiral benefits in
accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had          B
been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein.
[Paras9 to 11] [17-D-G]

    U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Ors. vs. L. P. Rai
(2007) 7 sec 81 - held inapplicable.
                                                                   c
    Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors.
(1999) 3 SCC 666: 1999 (2) SCR 354- referred to.

                     Case Law Reference :
    (2001) 1 sec 81            hel~   inapplicable   Para 3        D
    1999 (2) SCR 354           referred to           Para 4

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
5848-5849 of 2014.
                                                                   E
    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2009 in WP -
No. 1919/2009 dated 29/03/2010 in RP No. 139/2010 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

    Anurag Srivastava, T. Mahipal for the Appellant.
                                                                   F
   Sunil Kumar Jain, Pawanshree Agrawwal, Reeta
Chaudhary for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   G
    C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant who was
working as Assistant Engineer with respondent No.2. A
disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar
Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975,          H
    14       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A against him by serving a charge-sheet and after inquiry he was
  dismissed from service by order dated 27.4.1988. The
  appellant sought for quashing the said order by filing a writ
  petition in Writ Petition No.4328(S/B) of 1988 on the file of the
  High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court held
8 that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with ihe
  procedure stipulated in the Regulation 85 since no opportunity
  was given to cross-~xamine the witness and there is violation
  of principles of natural justice and quashed the disciplinary
  proceeding by allowing the Writ Petition on 10.1.2006. The
C order also directed for reinstatement and payment of back
  wages in accordance with the Rules. Liberty was also granted
  to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the
  Regulations. Pursuant to the order the appellant joined duty on
  26.4.2006. Fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by order
  dated 7.7.2006, appointing Shri G.S. Srivastava, Mukhya
D Abhiyanta as Inquiry Officer and it was pending. Meanwhile the
  appellant reached the age of superannuation and retired frbm
  service as Assistant Engineer on 31.3.2009.

       3. The appellant challenged the continuance of disciplinary
E proceeding after his retirement by filing Writ Petition
  No.1919(SB) of 2009 on the file of High Court of Judicature at
  Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court relying on the
  decision of this Court in UP. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and
  Others Vs. L.P.Rai [(2007) 7 SCC 81) held that there is no
F ground to interfere with the disciplinary proceeding and directed
  to complete it within four months by the impugned order dated
  18.12.2009. The appellant filed Review Petition No.139 of
  2010 and the High Court dismissed the same by order dated
  29.3.2010. Challenging both the orders the appellant has
G preferred the present appeals.                         ·

         4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
    disciplinary proceeding was not completed for more than three
    years and in the absence of any provision in the Regulations
    providing for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after
H
    DEV PRAKASH TEWARI v. U.P COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL            15
           SER. BOARD, LUCKNOW [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]

,retirement of the employee, the respondents could not continue          A
 the \disciplinary proceeding against the appellant after his


l
 sup~rannuation. It is his further contention tha.t the High Court
 has failed to appreciate the law laid down by this Court in
 similar circumstances in the> decisiori reported in Bhagirathi
 Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others [(1999) 3              B
 SCC 666] and for the said reason the impugned order is liable
 to be set aside.                                               ·

          5. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the
    respondents contended that pursuant to the liberty given bythe       C
    High Court in its order dated 10.1.2006 fresh disciplinary
    proceeding was initiated and as held by this Court in its
    decision rendered in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. case (supra)
    the right of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry cannot be denied
    on the ground that the employee has since retired from service
    and the impugned order is sustainable.                               D

         6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The
    facts are not in dispute. The High Court while quashing the
    earlier disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of
    principles of natural justi~e in its order dated 10.1.2006 granted   E
    liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance with the
    Regulations. The appellant who was reinstated in service on
    26.4.2006 and fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated on
    7.7.2006 and while that was pending, the appellant attained the
    age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2009. There is no
                                                                         F
    provision in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service
    Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of disciplinary
    proceeding after retirement of the appellant nor there is any
    provision stating that in case misconduct is established a
    deduction could be made from his retiral benefits. An occasion
    came before this Court to consider the continuance of                G
    disciplinary inquiry in similar circumstance in Bhagirathi Jena's
    case (supra) 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       H
    16        SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A        State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It
         reads thus:

          "When the employee who has been dismissed, removed
         ·or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and
          make a specific order :-
B
         (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
c        period on duty."

       6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid 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
D continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.

       7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the
  abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had
  no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits
E 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
F 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
G on retirement.
      8. In the subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop.
  Federation case (supra) 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
H management in its appeal before this Court sought for grant of
  DEV PRAKASH TEWARI v. U.P COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL           17
         SER. BOARD, LUCKNOW [C. NAGAPPAN, J.)

  liberty to hold a fresh inquiry and this Court held that charges      A
  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.                     B
      9. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision
 in Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra) was not brought to the notice
 of this 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        C
 decision cannot help the respondents herein.
       10. 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        D
 C?f 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.
      11. The question has also been raised in the appeal with          E
 regard to arrears of salar;y and allowances payable to the
 appellant during the period of his dismissal and upto the date
 of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in
 our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the
 balance of the emoluments payable to him.                              F
      12. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment
 and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents
 are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable
 to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits      G
 in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had
 beeri no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No
 costs.

 Devika Gujral                                     Appeals allowed ..
                                                                        H