JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. Present petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.07.2021, issued by Respondent No. 3, being wholly without jurisdiction.

II. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 07.07.2022, issued by enquiry officer.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was employed in the establishment of respondent no.3 on 01.04.1999 on the post of Head Clerk and he was retired on 30.04.2018. He further submitted that a charge sheet has been served upon petitioner on 07.04.2022, against which, petitioner filed present petition. He next submitted that service of the petitioner is governed by U. P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, 1984) and Regulations, 1984 is having no provision to empower the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to initiate disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding so initiated as well as impugned charge sheet dated 07.04.2022 is bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

4. He further submitted that under Regulation 43 of Regulations, 1984 rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall apply to the members of the Centralized Service. It is undisputed that as per Regulation 47 of the Regulations, 1984, service of the petitioner is not pensionable. Once the service of the petitioner is not pensionable, Article 351-A of U.P. Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as CSR) shall not be applicable in the case of petitioner and disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated against him after retirement. He next submitted that assuming it to be correct that Article 351-A of CSR is applicable, even though no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner for the reason that charge sheet was issued after four years from the date of his retirement. He lastly submitted that the very same issue was challenged before this Court in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another Vs. Public Services Tribunal U.P. and others, 2008 (2) ADJ 11 (DB), in which this Court has framed four questions, which were answered. Relevant question was as to whether in absence of any rule or regulation, disciplinary proceeding can continue, after a charged employee attains the age of superannuation. The Court answered and held that under Regulations, 1984 there is no provision for disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee, therefore, no such proceeding can be initiated against a retired employee. Even if proceeding so initiated before retirement shall not continue and be dropped. In the matter of S.P.S. Raghav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(6) ADJ 193 (DB), the Court has taken the same view and held that in absence of any rule, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the retired employee. Similar issue was again came up before this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others passed in Writ-A No. 7517 of 2016 decided on 29.02.2016 in which this Court has taken the same view.

5. Lastly, he submitted that under such facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned order dated 07.07.2021 for initiating inquiry and subsequent charge sheet dated 07.04.2022 may be set aside. Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 relying upon paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit submitted that as misconduct was traced out first time in the year 2016, therefore, disciplinary proceeding has been initiated again