JUDGMENT :

VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has superannuated on 30.06.2021 as Deputy Manager (Scale II). On the very day a notice was issued calling upon him to show cause as to why departmental action should not be initiated against him under the United India Insurance Company (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules 2014 for not submitting the Caste Validity Certificate. The lapse/omission according to the respondents constitutes misconduct.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 24.04.1985 as Typist. He was promoted from time to time and at the time of his retirement he was on the post of Senior Branch Manager at Branch Office, Chandrapur. On 30.06.2021 when he was superannuated and retired from services, he received the show cause notice on his WhatsApp calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why departmental action should not be initiated against him under the United India Insurance Company (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014 (for short, “the Rules, 2014). Further he was warned if satisfactory explanation is not submitted before 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter failing which appropriate action will be taken by the Company.

4. After rendering service of 36 years, he retired from the service on 30.06.2021. During this tenure, he was never served with any notice or charge memo or any departmental proceeding was initiated against him.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the show cause notice does not amount to initiation of departmental proceedings and departmental proceedings cannot be initiated four years after cause arises and after retirement. The services of the petitioner are governed by the United India Insurance Company (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2014. As per these Rules, the officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated by framing of charge sheet and same is pending and continuing on the date of retirement or superannuation of the employee, the departmental enquiry shall not be deemed to be concluded on exit of the employee from the corporation due to retirement or superannuation and shall continue as if the employee is in service until the proceedings are concluded and the final order is passed in respect thereof. The aforesaid regulation could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings have been clearly initiated prior to the petitioner’s retirement or superannuation. The terminologies used therein are of seminal importance only when the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against an officer of company before he ceased to be in service. The departmental proceedings is a trite law, it is not merely initiated by issuance of show cause notice. It is initiated only when charge sheet is issued.

6. The petitioner having superannuated without institution of any disciplinary proceedings, the Rules, 2014 were not attracted. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has retired from United India Insurance Company Limited being a Subsidiary Company of General Insurance Corporation of India on 30.06.2021. The retired employees of the United India Assurance Company Limited are governed by the General Insurance (Employees) Pensions Rules Scheme, 1995 and this, Pension Scheme is applicable to the petitioner. Rule 3(a) read with Rule 29 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 is applicable for the purpose of settlement of retiral dues and also regular monthly pension. Further by virtue of Rule 55 (Residuary Provision) contained in Chapter IX (General Condition) of the said scheme it is provided that the matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made shall be governed by corresponding provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the aforesaid provision of relevant provis