The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or continued after an employee's retirement, unless provided for by statutory service conditions or rules. The judgment emphasized the importance of definitive statutory provisions and highlighted the prospective operation of laws affecting substantive rights.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This is a respondent's appeal, arising out of a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2022, allowing Writ-A No.1920 of 2015.

2. The writ petitioner-respondent, Prabhat Kumar Jha, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the writ petitioner', is an ex-employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corporation Limited (for short, 'the Bridge Corporation'). He was in their employ since the year 1977. He retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2013. The Manager Personnel-I of the Bridge Corporation forwarded the writ petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity to the General Manager, Headquarters. The writ petitioner's claim for leave encashment was similarly recommended. There was inaction in the payment of the writ petitioner's gratuity, leave encashment, family pension and group insurance, aggregating a sum of Rs.25 lacs. The writ petitioner pursued his claim with the various officials of the Bridge Corporation, but to no avail.

3. The writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ-A No.35132 of 2014, which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2014, relegating the writ petitioner to represent his case before the competent authority of the Bridge Corporation, who was directed to pass a speaking order within the shortest possible period of time, preferably within two months of the date of receipt of his representation. The writ petitioner faced continued inaction and filed a contempt application before this Court being Contempt Application (Civil) No.5762 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2014, directing the officers of the Bridge Corporation that in case a decision on the writ petitioner's representation is not taken within two months of the receipt of Contempt Court's order, without reasonable cause, the Court would have no option but to proceed against the officers in contempt.

4. At this juncture, the Bridge Corporation issued a charge-sheet dated 02.12.2014 framing two charges against the writ petitioner. The charge-sheet was issued approximately a year after the writ petitioner's retirement. Accordingly, the writ petitioner instituted the writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, where he prayed that the charge-sheet be quashed as one without jurisdiction. He further sought a mandamus against the Bridge Corporation and its various authorities ordering them to pay his entire post retiral dues. The writ petition, after exchange of affidavits, was heard by the learned Single Judge, who has allowed it by the judgment and order impugned. The learned Judge has quashed the charge-sheet and further ordered the Bridge Corporation and its various authorities to release the entire post retiral dues payable to the writ petitioner, along with 8% interest from the date of his retirement, until realization.

5. Aggrieved, the Bridge Corporation and five of its officers have preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of Court.

6. Heard Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Bridge Corporation and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

7. The question involved in this appeal is whether departmental proceedings could be initiated against the writ petitioner after he had retired from service and if those proceedings are ultra vires. The general principle is that once an employee retires or the relationship of employer and employee otherwise comes to a terminus, the employer loses all disciplinary jurisdiction over the employee. The corollary is that generally speaking once an employee retires from service, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against him; also, pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after his superannuation. This general principle is, however, subject to the reputed exception that where by statutory service conditions or statutory service rules, a provision is made for initiation of disciplinary proceedings post retirement