1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’).

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.111 date d 28.2.2014 of the Managing Director of the ‘Corporation’ a copy of which is impugned at Annexure 7 to the writ petition, whereby an order has been passed for recovery of Rs.5,70,55,066/- from the post-retiral benefits of the petitioner including the group insurance and for the rest directions have been issued to institute a certificate case.

3. The petitioner questioned the proceedings before this Court in CWJC No. 3913 of 2016 which was disposed of vide order present at Annexure 9 on 22.4.2016 on the objection raised by the counsel for the ‘Corporation’ that the petitioner had appellate remedy under Regulation 25 of the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Staff Regulation’) framed under section 54 of the Agriculture Produce (Development and Warehousing) Corporations Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and whereupon the writ petition was disposed of to enable the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy. The order on appeal is impugned at Annexure 11and confirms the punishment order.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a superannuated employee of the ‘Corporation’ having superannuated on 31.7.2011.

5. The only issue which falls for consideration is, whether the ‘Corporation’ could have proceeded against the petitioner under the ‘Staff Regulation’. A copy of the ‘Staff Regulation’ has been produced by Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the ‘Corporation’ and which does not conceive of drawing any proceeding post-superannuation of an employee of the ‘Corporation’. The ‘Staff Regulation’ also does not adopt the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules for proceeding against its superannuated employee in case of any financial irregularity or grave misconduct. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing for the ‘Corporation’ admits that the Bihar Pension Rules are not applicable to the employees of the ‘Corporation’.

6. In other words, whereas the ‘Staff Regulation’ does not contain any provision which enables the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against a superannuated employee, the ‘Corporation’ has done nothing either to amend its Regulation or to adopt the Bihar Pension Rules so as to proceed against its superannuated employee in cases of such kind where they are charged with gross financial irregularities.

7. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the observation of the Full Bench in the case of Shambhu Saran vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2000(1) PLJR 665 and for the sake of convenience I deem it necessary to reproduce the relevant extract at paragraph 5 of the judgment in this context:

“… …. ….. ….. …… …… ……. … …. ….. ….. …. In this context, it may be pointed out that if the Government servant is in service, the disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against him and certain punishments may be imposed upon him as provided in the relevant Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. However, such punishments cannot be imposed upon him if retired from service. After his retirement he cannot be punished otherwise but pension can be withheld and other steps taken as contemplated by the said Rule 43. Punishments, major or minor, like dismissal or removal from service or withholding of increments etc., which contemplates that he is still in service, cannot be imposed upon him. In such view of the matter, if such a person has committed some wrong, merely because he retires and no remedy remains available to the Government even if there was good case against him, then it would be incongruous. Accordingly such a provision was made to that effect. It is in order to fill up this lacuna those provisions like rule 43(b) has been introdu