The relevant rules governing service conditions determine the permissibility of initiating and continuing departmental enquiries after an employee's superannuation.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenging the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice and charge sheet Annexure P/3 dated 27.11.2013 and to quash the same with further direction to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner i.e. contributory provident fund and other amount which has been withheld by the respondents on his retirement, this petition has been preferred.

2. From the pleadings of the petition, the facts unfolded are that petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2012 as Dy. Director, Jila Panchayat, Jabalpur, though he was an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board (hereinafter be called as Board). After about 11 months on attaining the age of superannuation a show cause notice along with the charge sheet and imputation of allegation dated 27.4.2013 was issued as per Annexure P/3 asking the defence of petitioner why the departmental enquiry should not be initiated. The petitioner submitted preliminary objection Annexure P/5 stating that after retirement departmental enquiry could not be continued as per Madhya Pradesh Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Viniyam, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Viniyam). It is contended that under Clause 4(5) of the Viniyam, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 have not been adopted and the Viniyam do not contemplate to initiate departmental enquiry after attaining the age of superannuation of an employee of the Board. However, initiation of departmental enquiry after retirement of petitioner is contrary to the Viniyam applicable to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, it has argued that looking to the imputation of allegation attached to the charge sheet it is apparent that allegation relates back to the year 1997-98. However, during employment of the petitioner till 31.5.2012 no departmental enquiry was initiated for more than 14 years and now after attaining the age of superannuation, at the time of settlement of the retiral dues, initiation of such departmental enquiry is arbitrary, malafide and do not have sanction under the rules and also contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Apex Court held that in the regulation applicable to the employee no specific provision is made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.

However, it is held that Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction from the retiral benefits of the appellant and there is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement, and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. In view of the said submissions, it is prayed that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice may be quashed and respondents may be directed to settle all the retiral dues of petitioner making payment of the amount of contributory provident fund.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 has contended that after considering the case of UCO Bank vs. Sanwar Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 412 the Apex Court has described that two concepts shall be applicable in the matter of demitting the office; one is resignation and other is retirement. However, both are different and for different purpose and in different context. It is explained that resignation brings about the complete cession of ma