By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :

(a) Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 6.11.2013 contained as Annexure 1 to the petition.

(b) Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to make the payment of Leave encashment and Security amount to the petitioner along-with interest @ 12% per-annum from the date it became due till the date of actual payment.

(c) Issue such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper of the case.

(d) Allow the writ petition with cost.

After filing of the writ petition, a counter-affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that some proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for a loss of Rs. 1,15,753.50.

2. The petitioner has filed writ petition No. 2013 (S/B) of 2011 which was dismissed vide order dated 9.12.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Chapter V, Regulations 21 of U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal on 16.1.2012 to Chairman, Executive Committee of Corporation claiming his retiral dues and during the pendency of the appeal, the Managing Director passed an order on 22.10.2013 directing that till the final decision from the department of Food and Civil Supplies the decision with regard to the deduction the recovery is being kept in abeyance.

3. The Court has put a specific query to the counsel for the opposite parties that whether the Service Rules permit initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel replied that U.P. Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation (for short “the Service Rules”) in this regard are silent. It has also been stated that Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations has not been adopted by the Corporation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments rendered in the case of U.P. State Warehousing Corp, Lucknow v. Sri Brish Bhan Singh and another, 2011(6) ADJ 674 (DB) and Ravindra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 297. Learned counsel has submitted that in identical situation, this Court has taken a view that power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is not vested with the opposite parties after retirement of the petitioner. Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations has not been adopted and Service Rules also do not permit initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. Submission, therefore, is that once this Court has settled the legal position, the action of the opposite parties is wholly illegal and without authority of law and initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement cannot be sustained in law.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, We find that the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Service Rules is not vested with the Corporation. Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations has also not been adopted by the Corporation. In these circumstances, if the very source of power is lacking, then initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement is without authority of law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the case of U.P. State Warehousing Corp, Lucknow (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as under :

“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 reg