JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing the disciplinary proceeding bearing D.P. No. 1 of 2009 initiated against him and also for quashing the order dated 17.3.2011 as at Annexure-7.

2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to delineate the facts involved in this case in gist. The petitioner after joining in service in the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') on 7.5.1973 has served the Corporation in different capacity and has been superannuated from service on 30.4.2009. While in service as the Zonal Manager, Bhawanipatna, he was served with a memorandum of the charges under Regulation 19 of the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1985 (in short 'Staff Regulation') on 25.4.2009 vide Disciplinary Proceeding No.1 of 2009: Thereafter, additional charges were framed on 29.4.2009. The petitioner has averred that he was not supplied with documents upon which the employer relied upon in the disciplinary proceeding for which the petitioner repeatedly made request and as the documents were not supplied to him, he did not get any opportunity to explain the charges levelled against him. The petitioner also alleges that as the disciplinary proceeding was initiated just three days prior to the date of his superannuation, levelling such action is an out come of personal vendetta.

3. Mrs. Pami Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulation, 1985 which governs the employees of the Corporation does not specifically provide for continuation of the disciplinary proceeding against an employee after he is superannuated. The petitioner' after being superannuated made several representations to the opposite party for release of the retiral dues, but the same has not been released till date. After being superannuated on 6.11.2010, the documents were supplied to the petitioner who received the same on 19.11.2010. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 6.11.2010, which was received by the petitioner on 19.11.2010 i.e. on the same date when he received the documents, in which the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. The question raised in this writ petition is as to whether under the Staff Regulation, the disciplinary proceeding could not have continued after superannuation of the petitioner. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (1999) 3 SCC 666, the Supreme Court, on facts, finding that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant therein under Regulation 44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 and charge-sheet was served on him on 22.7.1992. but the enquiry could not be completed against him till his retirement on 30.6.1995, held that no specific provision exists in the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry, nor is there any provision for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. In the absence of any such provisions, it must be held that the respondent-Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction from the appellant's retiral benefits. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after the appellant's retirement, nor is there any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Holding thus, the Supreme Court concluded that once the appellant retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing departmental enquiry even if for the purpose of imposing any reduction in retiral benefits payable to the appellant therein. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits.