The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer ceases upon the employee's retirement, and the statutory rules governing the terms of employment determine the relationship between the employer and the employee.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, punishing the petitioner, a former Warehouse Superintendent post retirement, with recovery of a sum of Rs.12,60,586/-.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are:

The petitioner was a Senior Warehouse Superintendent with the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). He retired from the Corporation’s employ upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 2009. He had joined the service of the Corporation in the year 1971 as a Clerk and was a permanent employee. In course of time, he was promoted to the post of a Senior Warehouse Superintendent. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner with the issue of a charge-sheet dated 08.11.2005. It carried allegations marshalled into five charges, all about negligence in the matter of maintenance of records and storage of rice, leading to loss sustained by the Corporation.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 18.11.2005, denying the charges. He offered his explanation to each of the charge. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 17.01.2006, holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges and finding him negligent in taking care of the stored stock at the Centre, laxity in control, deficiency in upkeep of records, storage of substandard rice and detection of damage to the stored rice beyond the approved limits by the Food Department.

4. The petitioner superannuated from the service of the Corporation on 31.07.2009 without any final orders being made in the pending disciplinary proceedings. The Managing Director of the Corporation passed the order impugned dated 12.05.2010, notifying a decision of the Executive Committee dated 19.04.2010, holding the total loss occasioned to the Corporation on account of misfeasance charged against the petitioner and three other employees in the sum of Rs.25,21,171.38. Apportioning the liability between the petitioner and the three other employees, the petitioner was held liable to make good a loss of Rs.12,60,586.19 from his post retirement benefits and other assets. It was also resolved that the petitioner’s subsistence allowance, that he had received during the period he was under suspension, that is to say, between 16.09.2005 and 17.05.2009, alone would be payable. This decision of the Executive Committee was notified and enforced through the order impugned passed by the Managing Director on 12.05.2010. It was directed that in order to realize the sum of Rs.12,60,586.19 to be recovered from the petitioner’s post retirement benefits and other dues, the sum of money payable to him on account of four increments that he had earned between 1st March, 2006 to 1st March, 2009, would be adjusted.

5. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 06.07.2010 and a supplementary appeal dated 10.02.2011, challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 12.05.2010, raising a ground that there is no jurisdiction with the Corporation under the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1961 (for short, ‘the Regulations’) to pass the impugned order, inasmuch as there was no provision in the Regulations to continue disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. As such, the proceedings lapsed and the impugned order was a nullity.

6. The petitioner has raised a grievance that this appeal preferred on 06.07.2010 has remained pending for years together – as long as nine years – with no result or information about its disposition being conveyed to the petitioner. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner invoked our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the impugned order be quashed on the basis of grounds raised.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 dated 08.04.2019, to which a rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. A sup