The judgment establishes the principle that the right to fair hearing must be upheld, and disciplinary action cannot be taken against an employee after retirement unless provided for in the Service Rules.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

1. This writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the respondent, i.e., the Union of India, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers.

1.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order as it seeks to convey the respondent’s displeasure qua his alleged role in the time and cost overrun vis-à-vis the Namrup Revamp Project of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (in short HFCL), since then, known as, Brahmputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. (in short BVFCL).

1.2 BVFCL is a public sector undertaking under the administrative control of the Department of Fertilizers (DOF), Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India (GOI). BVFCL was created pursuant to it being hived off from HFCL on 01.04.2002.

1.3 This is the petitioner’s second round of litigation in this court. The order conveying the respondent’s displeasure qua the petitioner’s role in the cost and time overrun of the Namrup Revamp Project was issued for the first time on, 28.04.2006. The petitioner had made representations qua the memo of displeasure issued to him which were disposed of vide communications dated 06.02.2008 and thereafter, on a re-examination on 15.04.2009.

1.4 Since the petitioner was aggrieved, he had moved this court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution laying challenge to not only the memorandum (memo) of displeasure dated 28.04.2006 but also the communications dated 06.02.2008 and 15.04.2009. This petition was numbered as WP(C) 3883/2010. A Single Judge of this court by a brief order dated 30.07.2010 set aside the impugned order and the communications referred to above based on a representation of the respondent contained in its letter of 23.07.2010. The said letter is extracted in the order of this court dated 30.07.2010.

1.5 Briefly, the respondent took the stand that if the court so directs, the Secretary (Fertilizers), GOI would accord hearing in the matter to the petitioner, and thereafter, the competent authority, which at the relevant time was, Minister of Chemical and Fertilizers, GOI would take a view on the representation of the petitioner.

2. Accordingly, the operative directions, which were issued by the court in WP(C) 3883/2010, were two-fold: First, to set aside the impugned order and the communications. Second, to direct the Secretary (Fertilizers) to inform the petitioner within ten (10) days, the date when he would have to appear before him, but before that the material, on the basis of which the impugned order may have been passed, would be furnished alongwith the letter communicating the date of hearing. The petitioner was also given liberty to place on record, all such documents on which he wished to place reliance, for consideration of the Secretary (Fertilizers). The concerned Minister was thereafter, required to render a decision on the petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that the directions of the court were not complied with: as the material, which was the basis of the impugned order (i.e., order dated 28.04.2006), was not supplied - the hearing given, was thus, a mere formality; and that documents received by the petitioner by taking recourse to the statutory route provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act), had revealed that the decision was premeditated. In this behalf the petitioner specifically sought to rely upon the report of the Dy. Secretary, DOF, GOI dated 10.08.2010.

3.1 As a matter of fact, it is alleged that the note-sheet, wherein the approval of the Minister is stated to have been obtained does not bear his signature instead the note dated 08.09.2010 records that the approval of the Minister has been obtained through fax, which evidently is appended to the note. The petitioner claims that, a copy of the said fax was not supplied to him when, an application was filed for receiving information under the RTI Act.

3.2 The petition