A disciplinary action lacking jurisdiction and procedural fairness cannot stand; retrospective penalties require proper authority and adherence to established norms.

ORDER

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the applicant is present.

Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents is present.

2. By way of the instant O.A., the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.09.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 imposing the penalty off compulsory retirement on the applicant from service at Process-Cum- Product Development Centre, Meerut with retrospective effect from 05.12.2001 as well as the entire proceedings included the minutes of 44^th meeting of the Governing Council, PPDC, Meerut dated 07.03.2019. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): -

“(i) to issue a suitable order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 02.09.2019 passed by respondent no. 4 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on the applicant from the service at Process-Cum- Product Development Centre, Meerut w.e.f 05.12.2001 as well as the entire proceedings including the minutes of 44th meeting of the Governing Council, PPDC, Meerut dated 7-3-2019. Annexure No. A-1 and A-2 to the O.A. compilation no.I.

(ii) to issue a suitable order or direction to the responuent no. 2 to 4 to exonerate the applicant from proceeding which was without jurisdiction and provide the salary till the date of applicant normal superannuation on 28-2-2008 for the period he was not allowed to work as neither any charge sheet was issued by the competent authority nor any proceeding was initiated by the Governing Council, PPDC, Meerut which was the competent authority in the matter and the applicant may also be paid other consequential benefits in accordance with law to which he is entitled with in a stipulated time to be fixed by this Hon'ble CAT, Allahabad.

(iii) to issue any other order or direction to the respondents to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

(iv) Award cost of the application.”

3. This is the third round of litigation. The facts of case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant was earlier working as Permanent Deputy Director (Leather/Footwear) in Small Scale Industry, Ministry of Industry, Government of India and posted in Process-Cum- Product Development Centre, Meerut (in short as the PPDC, Meerut) w.e.f. 17.12.1984 and the applicant was given the current charge of the post of Director, PPDC, Meerut w.e.f. 11.06.1986. The applicant was to normally retire on the aforesaid post on 28.02.2008 on reaching the age of superannuation. Subsequently, on conversion of the PPDC, Meerut into a registered Society, the applicant was permanently absorbed in the PPDC, Meerut as Joint Director w.e.f. 01.11.1988 by the Governing Council, PPDC, Meerut in its 9th Meeting held on 15.06.1993 by passing a resolution and appreciating the 'useful' services rendered by the applicant in the PPDC, Meerut vide annexure no. A- 5. The appointing authority of the applicant is Governing Council, PPDC, Meerut and the Director is not the appointing authority of applicant. It is submitted here that the disciplinary action taken against the applicant is a result of conspiracy hatched by Shri S. N. Mishra-the then Director, PPDC, Meerut because of the petitioner's opposition against unscrupulous activities carried out by the said Director in use of funds and resources of the PPDC, which was later on exposed to the authorities and thereafter Shri S. N. Mishra was removed from service on charges of serious financial irregularities.

4. It is relevant to mention here that, Sri. S.N. Mishra joined the PPDC, Meerut as Director in the month of September, 1994 when the applicant and the other employees as