Petitioner challenged orders changing the enquiry officer and issuing a show-cause notice after his retirement. The single-judge bench listed the matter for the corporation to file a counter-affidavit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11827 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shivkaran
Respondent :- U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko. Thru. Managing Director And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Singh Tomar,Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Annuj Taandon, Advocate, who files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4.
2 . Under challenge is the order dated 07.11.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been required to show cause to the enquiry report.
Also under challenge is the order dated 07.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby the enquiry officer has been changed and the enquiry has been continued by a new enquiry officer.
3 . Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020. Even prior to his retirement on account of charge-sheet having been issued to the petitioner dated 06.06.2019, the petitioner had been punished by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 28.07.2021. Appeal against the same has also been rejected vide order dated 29.10.2020.
4 . Being aggrieved the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11628(SS) of 2021 In Re Shivkaran vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Lucknow Thru M.D. & Ors. The writ court vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2021, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition, quashed the punishment and appellate orders and directed the corporation to conclude the enquiry afresh from the stage of submission of the reply to the charge-sheet in accordance with law, if the law permits.
5 . In pursuance thereof, the impugned order has been passed.
6 . Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2020 and there being no provision under the Regulations for continuance of the enquiry subsequent to retirement of the petitioner and in pursuance to the charge-sheet the punishment order and appellate order have already been quashed and the writ court vide judgment and order dated 28.09.2021 specifically required the respondents to conclude the enquiry if the law permits as such the respondents have patently erred in law while passing the orders impugned as no such enquiry can be continued against the petitioner subsequent to his retirement.
7 . On the other hand, Shri Annuj Taandon, learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 2021 to contend that Regulation 74 specifically empowers the Corporation that in case disciplinary proceedings were instituted while the employee was in service the said proceedings can be continued and consequently it is contended that in terms of Regulations 2021 the enquiry has correctly been continued against the petitioner and also considering the liberty as has been granted by the writ court and thus there is no error in the same.
8 . Responding to aforesaid learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Writ Petition No.4779(SS) of 2014: Ram Milan vs Bank of Baroda through Chief Managing Director, Baroda & Ors , decided on 08.05.2019, a copy of which is Anenxure-9 to the petition, to contend that this aspect of the matter has already been considered threadbare and it has been held by this Court that once the Regulations do not contemplate continuance of the enquiry subsequent to retirement as such merely because Regulation 2021 which have been issued after retirement of the petitioner would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner as such the respondents are not within the rights of continuing the enquiry
against the petitioner and for having passed the impugned orders.
9 . The matter requires consideration.
10. The respondents-Corporation may file a short counter affidavit within a period of two weeks to which reply may be filed within next one week.
11 . Considering the short question of law involved in this matter, list thereafter as fresh.
Order Date :- 10.12.2024 prateek
Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the enquiry officer can be changed subsequent to the petitioner's retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
Whether an enquiry instituted prior to retirement can be continued against the petitioner after he retired.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Milan vs Bank of Baroda through Chief Managing Director, Baroda & OrsReferred¶14
Writ Petition No.4779(SS) of 2014: Ram Milan vs Bank of Baroda through Chief Managing Director, Baroda & Ors
Shivkaran
U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Lko.
Abdul Moin
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
