Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Ms. Vishwabharati Vitthal Devkhile, Adv.

The primary argument in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Corporation to initiate and continue disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee without specific provisions in the applicable regulations. The appellant contends that, in the absence of explicit provisions permitting post-retirement disciplinary actions, the Corporation lacked the legal authority to proceed against him after his superannuation. This argument is grounded in the interpretation of the relevant Regulations, particularly Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations, which is of a residuary and general nature, allowing the Corporation to regulate cases where specific provisions are absent, but only to the extent considered appropriate by the Corporation. The appellant emphasizes that this does not extend to creating new jurisdiction or authority where none explicitly exists.

Furthermore, the appellant argues that the reliance on Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules is misplaced because, under clause (b) of that rule, departmental proceedings initiated after retirement require prior sanction of the Government. Since such sanction was not obtained, any proceedings initiated or continued against him post-retirement are invalid. The appellant also highlights that the Rules specify that proceedings not initiated during active service cannot be continued without prior sanction, and any attempt to do so contravenes the procedural safeguards established to protect retired employees from unwarranted disciplinary actions.

On the other hand, the respondent contends that the Corporation had the authority to adopt and apply the Pension Rules, including Rule 27, based on the approval granted by the State Government and the general practice of applying these rules to retired employees. They argue that the Regulations, particularly Rule 110, permit the Corporation to regulate cases in the same manner as government employees, and that such application was within their discretion, especially given the approval received from the Government.

However, the Court's reasoning underscores that the mere approval or general practice does not substitute for a specific, conscious decision or resolution by the Corporation adopting the Pension Rules or explicitly authorizing post-retirement disciplinary proceedings. The mandatory nature of prior sanction, as implied by the language of Rule 27(2)(b)(i), cannot be bypassed under the guise of general approval or practice. The absence of a clear, formal adoption or specific sanction from the competent authority renders the proceedings invalid.

In conclusion, the argument hinges on the interpretation of the applicable Regulations and Rules, emphasizing that without explicit provisions, formal adoption, and prior government sanction, the Corporation lacked the jurisdiction to institute or continue disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee. This interpretation aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and statutory compliance, reinforcing that such proceedings are invalid in the absence of the requisite legal authority.