IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees require explicit legal provisions; otherwise, retirement benefits cannot be withheld.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Petitioners in these writ petitions were permanent employees of Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), who retired from service on different dates in the year 2017. After their retirement, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and the amount payable to them as gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance etc. has been withheld due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court for relief.

2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are heard and decided by this common judgment, however, for the sake of brevity, facts of WPSB No. 407 of 2021, alone are being considered and discussed. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Nigam, who was appointed as Company Secretary in the Corporation, and retired on 31.08.2017, has filed WPSB No. 407 of 2021 with the following prayers:-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and salary for the month of August, 2017.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest at the market rate on the delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance and salary of August, 2017.

(III) Issue a writ, order in the nature of declaration, declaring the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner to be illegal and against the provisions of law.”

3. In paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that State Government has 30% shares, while Government of India through National Seed Corporation has 21% share and G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar has 15% share in Uttarakhand Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is apparent that State Government has all pervasive administrative and financial control over the affairs of the Corporation. Thus, it is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that under the Rules, governing the service conditions of employees of the Corporation, there is no provision enabling the Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings, after retirement of an employee.

5. It is contended that employer-employee relationship is severed upon retirement of an employee, and thereafter, he cannot be subjected to disciplinary control of the employer, unless there is a provision enabling the employer to issue a charge-sheet or institute a disciplinary enquiry.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation was given time to get the relevant provisions of law, which enable the Corporation to issue chargesheet to a retired employee. Learned counsel, states that the Service Rules applicable to employees of the Corporation are absolutely silent on the said aspect. He, however, relies upon an order of Managing Director issued on 03.01.2019. By the said order, it is provided that provision contained in Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, applicable to Government employees, has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its 230th meeting, held on 26.09.2018. Thus, he submits that in view of the said order, the Corporation is justified in continuing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner, after his retirement.

7. The said submission cannot be accepted, as the order relied by the Corporation was issued on 03.01.2019; while the petitioner had retired in the year 2017 itself, therefore, any decision taken by the Corporation, post retirement of the petitioner cannot be pressed into service for defending the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 26.09.2018, is extracted below:-

“351-A. The Governor