Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 96
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Anoop Chitkara, JJ.
Lokinder Dutt Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Board Of Directors Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing And Processing Corporation Ltd. & Anr. - Respondent
C.W.P.O.A. No. 138 of 2019
Decided On : 18-03-2020
Ramesh Kaundal, Advocate, P.D. Nanda, Advocate
The relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are determinative of the authority to initiate or continue with the departmental enquiry against the retired employee.
Headnote:
Retired Employee - Departmental Enquiry - Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation, Ltd., Employees Service Bye-Laws - Chapter-VI, Section 6.17(1) - Summary: The court considered whether departmental proceedings could be initiated against a retired employee based on amended byelaws. The relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee were found to be determinative of the authority to initiate or continue with the departmental enquiry against the retired employee. The court held that in the absence of specific provisions in the existing byelaws, there was no authority to initiate disciplinary enquiry after the retirement of the petitioner. The departmental enquiry and the penalty order passed were quashed and set aside as being without jurisdiction or authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Deputy General Manager, was served with a charge-memo and faced departmental enquiry after retirement. The byelaws in force at the time of retirement did not provide for conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. An amendment to the byelaws was made after the petitioner's retirement, allowing for initiation of departmental proceedings against retired employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that in the absence of specific provisions in the existing byelaws, there was no authority to initiate disciplinary enquiry after the retirement of the petitioner. The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the penalty order, were quashed and set aside as being without jurisdiction or authority.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee in the absence of specific provisions in the existing byelaws and the validity of the penalty order passed based on the departmental enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are determinative of the authority to initiate or continue with the departmental enquiry against the retired employee. In the absence of specific provisions in the existing byelaws, there was no authority to initiate disciplinary enquiry after the retirement of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the penalty order, were quashed and set aside as being without jurisdiction or authority. The respondents were directed to release the entire amount of leave encashment withheld by them within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The seminal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether after the retirement of an employee the departmental proceedings in absence of any provision in the byelaws could have been initiated and whether such power and authority could have been exercised on the basis of the amended byelaws which admittedly had been amended after the petitioner already retired from service.
2. However, before answering the said questions, certain admitted facts need to be noticed.
3. The petitioner was working with the respondent-Corporation and retired from the post of Deputy General Manager on 31.3.2014. After about four months of the retirement of the petitioner, he was served with charge-memo, which led to initiation of the departmental enquiry and the same finally culminated into imposition of recovery of Rs.2,46,139/-.
4. It is not in dispute that as per the Bye-laws that were in force at the time of the retirement of the petitioner known as the 'Himachal Pradesh Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation, Ltd., Employees Service Bye-Laws", there was no provision for conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner and it is only vide amendment carried out in the bye-laws pursuant to the Board of Directors meeting of the respondent-Corporation held on 29.9.2014 that an amendment was carried out in the bye-laws, which reads as under:
| Chapter -VI Existing Provision | Chapter-VI Amended Provision |
| CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEALS | CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEALS |
| 6.17(1). Without prejudice to the provision of other regulation an employee who commits a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or who displays negligence in efficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of prestige of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct or misbehaviour, shall be liable to the following penalties: Minor Penalties: (i) Censure: | 6.17(1). Without prejudice to the provision of other regulation an employee who commits a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or who displays negligence in efficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of prestige of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct or misbehaviour, shall be liable to the following penalties: Minor Penalties: (v) Censure: |
