Important Point
In the absence of statutory regulation permitting continuance of unconcluded disciplinary enquiry even after superannuation of delin­quent, disciplinary enquiry would lapse and for purpose of reduction of retiral benefit proceedings cannot be continued when statutory regulation does not provide for any such reduction of retiral bene­fits.

Order

Special leave granted.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant who was an employee of the respondent Corporation. The appellant joined as a Junior Clerk in 1962 and by the year 1986 he was working as Joint General Manager. He was issued a charge sheet on 22.7.92 in respect of various items of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the same day under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 and the appellant was suspended with immediate effect. For various reasons, which it is not necessary to mention here, the disciplinary enquiry was not concluded before the date of the appellant’s superannuation, which took place on 30th June, 1995.

3. The appellant was relieved on 1st July, 1995 by the Corporation “without prejudice to the claims of the Corporation.” Thereafter the question arose in regard to the continuance of the disciplinary en­quiry for the purpose of reduction of retiral benefits payable to the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa contending that once the appellant had retired on 30.6.95, the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued even for the purpose of making reduction of the retiral benefits inasmuch as there were no statutory regulations made by the Corporation for such reduction of retiral benefits. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 30.6.98. Thereafter the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent Corporation invited our attention to the Regulation-17 of the Orissa State Financial Corpora­tion Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1959. It reads thus;

“The sum standing to the credit of a subscriber shall become payable on the termination of his/her service or on his/her death, provided that there may if the Board so directs the Administrators, be deducted there from and paid to the Corporation--

(a) any amount due under a liability incurred by the subscriber to the Corporation up to the total amount contributed by the Corporation to his/her account, including the interest credited in respect thereof:”

Learned senior counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3)(c) of the Regulation-44 of the Orissa 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:-

(i) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employees for the period of his absence from duty, and

(ii) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period on duty."

5. 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 continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation.

6. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid 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. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appel­lant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.

7. Learned senior counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in T.S. Mankad v. State of Guja­rat1. It is true that that was a case of imposing a reduction in the pe