Hon’ble Yatindra Singh, J.—The main question involved in this writ petition is, whether—in absence of any rule or regulation—disciplinary proceedings can continue after a charged employee attains the age of superannuation.

The Facts

2. Respondent No. 2 (the contesting respondent) was the Secretary of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra. It is a class-III post. He was earlier a Government employee but was absorbed in the service of the State Agricultural Produce Market Board (the Board). His services are governed by the U.P. Agriculture Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services Regulations, 1984 (the Service Regulations).

3. The contesting respondent was given a charge-sheet on 12.12.1985 that included ten charges. He was also suspended on 25.1.1988. He was given second charge-sheet on 3.8.1988. The second charge-sheet included five charges.

4. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 29.8.1988. The inquiry officer held that :

First charge sheet— Charge No. 4 and charge No. 10 partly proved.

Second charge sheet—Charge Nos. 3 to 5 proved.

5. The disciplinary authority partly disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of some of the charges that were held to be not proved. He recorded the following findings :

(a) First charge-sheet :

(i) Charges Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 were held to be not proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was accepted.

(ii) Charge No. 4 was held to be proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was also accepted.

(iii) Charge No. 5 was held to be not proved by the inquiry officer. This was not accepted and it was held to be partly proved.

(iv) Charge Nos. 7 to 9 were held to be not proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was not accepted. They were held to be proved.

(v) Charge No. 10 was held to be partly proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was accepted.

(b) Second charge-sheet :

(i) Charge No. 1 was held to be not proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was not accepted and it was held to be partly proved.

(ii) Charge No. 2 was held to be not proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was accepted.

(iii) Charge Nos. 3 to 5 were held to be proved by the inquiry officer. This finding was accepted.

On the basis of these findings, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal on 9.12.1988.

6. The contesting respondent filed an appeal. It was dismissed by non-speaking order on 3.2.1990.

7. The contesting respondent filed an application before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Lucknow (the Tribunal). It was allowed on 27.1.1996 holding that :

(i) No reasonable opportunity was given to the contesting respondent.

(ii) During pendency of the proceeding before the Tribunal, the contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation on 30.1.1994.

(iii) The contesting respondent had continued in service till the age of superannuation and is entitled to arrears of salary and other service benefits alongwith 18% interest.

8. The present writ petition has been filed by the Board against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.

Point for Determination

9. We have heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, Sri Udai Chandani for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Awasthi counsel for the contesting respondent (See Endnote-1). The following points arise for determination in this case :

(i) Whether the contesting respondent was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry.

(ii) Whether any prejudice has been caused to the contesting respondent, due to non observance of principles of natural-justice.

(iii) Whether it is a fit case where the disciplinary proceedings should be dropped against the contesting respondent.

(iv) The contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.1994. In these circumstances, whether at this stage any disciplinary inquiry can continue against the contesting respondent.

(v) Whether the award of 18% interest on salary and other service benefit is correct.

Point No. 1: No Opportunity

10. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in paragra