JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

The sole question of law that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether petitioner could have been inflicted with a major penalty of termination/dismissal/removal from service after attaining the age of superannuation even in the face of the fact that certified standing orders framed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 are absolutely silent on this point.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1946, inasmuch as, services of the petitioner while in service being governed under the certified Standing orders, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot be invoked to enforce the same.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner who was appointed in the year 1981 as a helper and later on received promotions, finally came to be retired from service of respondents establishment on 22nd February, 2017 as a Senior Technical Assistant Grade VI (production).

4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the matter of a complaint made by a third party and the complaint was that, while petitioner applying for employment in the year 1981, he had submitted a transfer certificate, in which he showed himself as class VIIIth passed, whereas transfer certificate was allegedly a forged document. A report was called for from the District Basic Education Officer which was submitted on 23rd July, 2016 in which it came to be reported that transfer certificate did not appear to be genuine one as per report of the principal. However, on further verification a second report suggested that transfer certificate was genuine one and that there was no dispute regarding the same. Two reports being contradictory to each other, respondent establishment called for a third report which was submitted on 2nd August, 2016 and on the basis of same an in housing enquiry was got conducted by District Basic Education Officer and in this report, it came to be reported that transfer certificate did not appear to be a genuine document. Accordingly, disciplinary proceeding was instituted and charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 27.8.2016 almost 34 years after the petitioner was appointed imputing with the charge that he obtained employment by submitting forged document. Petitioner did submit reply as enquiry proceeded with but the enquiry could be completed and report could be submitted on 12.12.2017 only after petitioner got superannuated. On the basis of the enquiry report petitioner was served with a show-cause notice.

5. Petitioner challenged the enquiry before Delhi High Court taking the plea that since he had retired and the standing orders did not provide for disciplinary proceedings to continue after retirement of the employee, hence the enquiry report and the proceedings pursuant thereto was liable to be set aside. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 12.3.2018 provided the petitioner to submit reply before the competent authority itself and competent authority was directed to look into his reply and pass appropriate orders. Petitioner submitted reply questioning the continuance of proceeding even after his retirement, however, disciplinary authority rejected the same on the ground that since the Delhi High Court had rejected the plea of the petitioner to quash the proceedings, this chapter was closed. Petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court against the said order and this Court remitted the matter vide order dated 8.2.2019, directing petitioner to prefer appeal before the appellate authority and it was left open for him to take such plea regarding jurisdiction of the authority to continue disciplinary proceedings after retirement of an employee and in the event if petitioner took such a plea, the same was directed to be considered. The appe