Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the charge memo dated 26.4.2008. A further direction has also been sought to be issued upon the respondent No. 2 to pay the provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. to the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts are that the petitioner was posted as Technical Officer in U.P. Warehousing Corporation, Bareilly. He retired on reaching his age of superannuation on 31.5.2005. On his retirement he was paid only Rs. 2,60,000/- and his other dues as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance have been withheld.

3. The petitioner made several representations and reminders for the payment of dues. Those representations and reminders did not find any favour from the concerned officers. It is stated that after two years of his retirement on 23.1.2007 a charge memo has been issued against him in respect of alleged loss caused to the Ware House. The petitioner challenged the said charge memo mainly on the ground that the charges against the petitioner relates to more than four years old. The same charges are of 1998 and 2000.

A perusal of various charges would indicate that the alleged loss mentioned in the charge memo relates back to almost four years prior to the petitioner’s retirement.

4. I have heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulations 351-A and 470 of Civil Services Regulations, the departmental proceedings would have been initiated after the retirement in respect to the charges, which relates back, within four years. In the present case the charges are of 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

He further urged that he stood retired in the year 2005. However, the department proceedings have been initiated on 26.4.2008, after three years of his retirement.

He further urged that the decision to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is arbitrary and unfair as after three years of his retirement, he has been denied his all post retiral benefits and he has been called upon to answer some of the charges pertaining to year 1998-2000. At this distance of time, he further urged that the petitioner is unable to submit his reply after his retirement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on similar fact on a Division Bench judgments in Writ-A No. 19390 of 2011 decided on 18.1.2012 (Girish Chandra Dubey v. State of U.P. and another), Writ A No. 24752 of 2012 decided on 22.5.2012 (Lal Babu v. State of U.P. and another) and in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpandan Mandi Parishad v. Public Services Tribunal U.P., 2008(2) ADJ 11 (DB).

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation. He had drawn the attention of the Court towards the Regulations which deals with imposition of penalty. The Regulation 16(1)(e) provides “recovery from pay, security deposit or otherwise of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee.”

He has further submitted that the writ petition is pre mature as petitioner can participate in the disciplinary proceeding.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and have also perused the record.

The petitioner was a technician and he retired in the year 2005. After three years of his retirement the memorandum of charge has been issued to him wherein some of the allegations with regard to the alleged loss pertaining to the year 1998-2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have initiated disciplinary proceeding even after three years of his retirement. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit that the disciplinary proceeding was not init