The Allahabad High Court has said the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation, 1981 does not have any provision for continuation of inquiry or disciplinary proceeding, even after retirement.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari passed the order on a petition filed by Nar Singh Pal Yadav, challenging the order dated March 13, 2013 as well as appellate order dated January 17, 2014.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I and during the course of his service, a charge sheet dated 16.11.2011 was served upon him. Further, during the pendency of inquiry, petitioner was retired from service on 30.04.2012. It appears that the said inquiry was completed and a report was submitted on 07.08.2012, after retirement of the petitioner.
It is next submitted that the service of petitioner is governed by UP State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than Officers) Service Regulation 1981, which is having no provision of continuation of inquiry or disciplinary proceeding after retirement, therefore, impugned order, which has been passed after retirement, is bad and liable to be set aside.
In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Court passed in Writ-A No 7517 of 2016 decided on 29.02.2016, in which the Court has allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order only on the ground that Regulation, 1981 is having no provision for continuation of inquiry or disciplinary proceeding after retirement, the Court noted.
Lastly, it is submitted that under such circumstances, impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be issued to refund the amount so required.
U.S. Singh Visen, Counsel for the respondents, though opposed the submissions of counsel for petitioner, but could not dispute the judgement relied upon and further this fact that Regulation, 1981 is having no provision for continuation of inquiry or disciplinary proceeding even after retirement.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition.
“Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, impugned orders dated March 13, 2013 and January 17, 2014 are hereby quashed. The respondent No 4 is directed to release the amount in question, along with eight per cent interest maximum within a period of three months”, the Court ordered.