Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be in accordance with the applicable regulations at the time of retirement, and in the absence of specific provisions allowing continuation of proceedings after retirement, such proceedings cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners who are the widow and son of Late Ram Nazar Singh challenging the order dated 16.10.2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur and praying for direction to be issued to the respondent-Bank to release post retiral benefits of the deceased employee with admissible interest.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that they are legal heirs of late Ram Nazar Singh who retired as a Grade-II employee of Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur on 31.07.2018. At the time of his retirement, he was not placed under suspension and no charge-sheet was issued to him and no disciplinary proceedings were proposed against him. On 27.08.2018, an amendment was carried out in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 by which Regulations 85 was amended and sub-Regulations (XI) and (XII) were added by which Rules regarding disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee, shall be applicable for employee of Cooperative Societies as were applicable to the retired employees of the State Government and the sanction was to be obtained not from His Excellency the Governor of U.P., but from the Registrar who was the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such retired employees.

4. On 02.02.2021, the respondent-Bank appointed an Inquiry Officer and on 24.02.2021, charge-sheet was served upon the husband of the petitioner no.1. He replied to the charge-sheet but the disciplinary proceedings remained pending and the husband of the petitioner no.1 died on 02.09.2021. The inquiry report was submitted much after the death of the deceased employee on 30.09.2021. No show cause notice was issued to the deceased employee regarding proposed punishment as he was not alive and the punishment order was issued on 16.10.2021 based on the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 05.10.2021 by which it was resolved to recover an amount of Rs.11,80,363/- along with interest from the retiral dues of late Ram Nazar Singh as he was found guilty of causing loss to the Society.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that late Ram Nazar Singh retired on 31.07.2018. At that time, there was no provision in the Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against retired employees. This question has been settled finally by the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, [(2014) 7 SCC 260] where the Supreme Court observed that there was no provision in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against retired employees or for continuing disciplinary proceedings even when they were started before retirement of the employee concerned.

6. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case of late Ram Nazar Singh, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated before his retirement. The amendment in the Service Regulations came to be notified only on 27.08.2018 with immediate effect. They were not retrospective in nature. Hence they could not be made to apply to an already retired employee. The Inquiry Officer being appointed on 02.02.2021 and charge-sheet being served on 24.02.2021 was completely without jurisdiction. Although the respondents say in their counter affidavit that the Registrar the Competent Authority under the amended Regulations had issued an order granting sanction for initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of late Ram Nazar Singh, a perusal of the order referred to in the counter affidavit as CA-1 dated 09.02.2021 would show that the Registrar had initially raised a doubt regarding the admissibil