IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against an employee after retirement if not expressly provided for in the governing rules.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

1. Supplementary counter-affidavit filed today be taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. Present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show-cause notice dated 7.11.2014, served by the petitioner on 25.11.2014 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) as well as the impugned show-cause notice dated 8.8.2022 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiate against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned show-cause notices dated 7.11.2014 and 8.8.2022, in view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are not permissible to be initiated under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976 after retirement of an employee.

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay all post-retirement dues, namely; earned leave encashment, gratuity, security, etc., alongwith interest @ 8% per annum accruing to the petitioner.”

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Assistant Field Officer in Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. at Bhogaon Branch, Mainpuri and he was superannuated on 31.7.2013.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after retirement of petitioner, a show-cause notice dated 7.11.2014 (served on 25.11.2014) was issued to the petitioner proposing the punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,74,380/- from him. The service of petitioner is governed by Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Employees Service Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1976'). Apart from other grounds, in his reply dated 5.12.2014, petitioner has taken specific ground that after retirement, no such show-cause notice may be issued as Rules, 1976 is having no such provisions for issuance of show-cause notice or departmental proceeding against a retired employee. After submission of reply, no action has been taken against the petitioner by the respondent-Bank. Again, a show-cause notice dated 8.8.2022 i.e. after around eight years was issued to the petitioner for recovery of 50% of Rs. 6,47,187/-. Petitioner has replied the same vide letters dated 6.9.2022 and 11.3.2023. In these replies too, petitioner has taken specific ground that after retirement, no such show-cause notice may be issued. Pursuant to the show-cause notices dated 7.11.2014 and 8.8.2022, till date, no decision has been taken and gratuity has also been paid to the petitioner retaining the amount of leave encashment and security. He pointed out that service of petitioner is not pensionable. In lack of provisions of Rules, 1976, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as this Court in the matters of Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, 2014 (4) ESC 494 (SC), Smt. Luxmi Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (11) ADJ 170, Brahamnad Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (8) ADJ 624.

6. Per contra, Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent-Bank submitted that service of petitioner is governed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Society Employees Service Regulation, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Regulation, 1975'), but he could not demonstrate any provision in Regulation, 1975 authorizing the respondent-Bank to initiate departmental proceeding or show-cause notice after retirement. He further submitted in light of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of U.P. State Sugar Corp. Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41, even after retirement, show