By the Court.—Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the parties’ counsel, we decide the writ petition finally at admission stage.

2. Heard Mr. R.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. The claimant respondent was posted as Assistant Regional Manager in the U.P. State Ware Housing Corporation (in short, corporation). He was served with a charge-sheet on 29.8.2006. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the claimant respondent vide order dated 19.4.2004 with regard to certain negligence and carelessness committed by the respondent No. 1 during the course of employment causing loss to the corporation. The respondent No. 1 retired from service on 31.7.2004. Thereafter, on 2.5.2006, a show cause notice was served calling upon him to submit a reply with regard to certain loss caused to the corporation. The respondent No. 1 submitted a reply on 16.6.2006 and after considering the reply submitted by the respondent, a charge-sheet dated 29.8.2006 was served, in response to which the petitioner submitted a response. However, it has been stated by the petitioner’s counsel that no reply was submitted by the claimant respondent.

4. The disciplinary proceedings were subject matter of dispute before the tribunal. The claimant respondent assailed the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that it is violative of the provisions of Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations. It was stated before the tribunal by the claimant respondent that no permission was accorded to initiate disciplinary proceedings by the Managing Director in terms of Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations. The tribunal has allowed the claim petition and set aside the disciplinary proceedings with a further direction to pay cost.

5. While assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations is not applicable with regard to employees of corporation since the corporation has not adopted the Government rules or regulations and it is covered by independent service rules. However, it has been admitted by the petitioner’s counsel that in service rules, no such provision has been made to initiate enquiry against a retired employee. He submits that the provision as given in Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations has been followed while holding the enquiry.

6. In response to the argument, the learned counsel for the private respondent submits that in absence of any provision as contained in Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, the petitioner lacks jurisdiction to initiate enquiry against the retired employee. He further submits that action against a retired employee may be taken in accordance with existing rules or regulations and not otherwise. He relied upon the cases in C.L. Verma v. State of M.P and another, AIR 1990 SC 463 and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others, AIR 1999 SC 1841.

7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Service Rules and Regulations of the corporation do not contain any provision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee. It has also been admitted that the Board of the corporation has not adopted the provisions contained in Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations to regulate the service conditions of the employees.

8. Keeping in view the admitted facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents seems to be correct that in absence of any provision, the petitioner has got no right to initiate or continue with the disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. The case of C.L. Verma (supra) also relates to alike controversy. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in absence of any specific provision, no disciplinary proceeding