Departmental proceedings against retired employees cannot be instituted under Civil Service Regulations if the post is non-pensionable; gratuity cannot be withheld without meeting statutory conditions.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner namely, Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi is a retired Deputy Director (Administration/Commerce) of Mandi Parishad, Prayagraj. He has been served with the chargesheet dated 14^th September, 2023 to hold domestic enquiry under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999) read with Section 351-A of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (hereinafter referred to as “CSR”) in the matter of financial loss to the tune of Rs. 5.13 crores caused to the Mandi Parishad for his alleged conspiracy and mismanagement in procurement and sale of paddy and thereby committing embezzlement. He has also challenged the consequential charge sheet dated 5.12.2023 and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus for release of gratuity amount with further interest thereupon for delay and has also prayed for revised pay-scale benefits and consequential arrears of salary from 1/1/2006 till 18^th Mach, 2011 as per office memorandum issued on 23^rd August, 2023.

2. For assailing the institution of departmental enquiry and the chargesheet and questioning the act of respondents in withholding gratuity, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised following arguments:

(i) CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (CSR) do not apply to the employees of the Mandi Parishad, more especially in view of amendment carried out to the U.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations 1984 vide 7^th amendment dated 30^th September, 2014;

(ii) Even, if CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS apply, its Article 351-A would not apply as Mandi Parishad establishment is not a pensionable establishment;

(iii) The gratuity admissible to the employee shall be governed under the Payment of Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984 and unless and until conditions prescribed under the Act are attained to withhold the gratuity, gratuity cannot be withhold.

3. In support of his argument, Mr. Shah has taken the Court to the amended provision of Regulation 28 of 1984 Regulations that are reproduced hereunder:

4. Citing the above provisions, Mr. Shah submitted that prior to 2014 while rules in general relating to disciplinary proceeding , the appeal and revision against punishment as applicable to the employees of the State Government, were made applicable, but after 2014 amended, Rules, 1999 were specifically made applicable to the employees of the Board. So a