Chatru Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30304

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1933 of 2025

Petitioner :- Chatru Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Agrawal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Dhar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

The petitioner was an employee of the UPSRTC. The disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner for various acts of misconduct on 01.10.2020. The petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2021. The disciplinary proceedings did not conclude on the date of superannuation of the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings were continued and concluded much after the retirement of the petitioner.

¶7

Shri Himanshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under the UP State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 which authorizes the authorities to continue the disciplinary proceedings after retirement.

¶8

This fact could not be disputed by the counsel for the respondent Corporation Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey.

¶9

Pursuant to the enquiry proceedings, the impugned order of recovery was passed against the petitioner on 31.12.2021. Being aggrieved the aforesaid order was

¶10

carried in appeal by the petitioner before the departmental authority. By the impugned order passed by the appellate authority dated 25.09.2024 a fresh departmental enquiry has been ordered against the petitioner.

¶11

The issue regarding the legal authority to continue departmental proceedings after superannuation of the employee of UPSRTC arose for consideration before this Court in Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. rendered in Writ A No. 7517 of 2016. The learned Single Judge upon consideration the factum of absence of legal provisions to continue departmental proceedings post retirement held as under:

¶12

"Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, in which it is contended that since departmental enquiry has been initiated prior to the petitioner's superannuation, as such, it is legal for the respondents to conclude such proceedings, and order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel for the respondents however, fairly states that on the legal position, there exists no provision in Service Rules, 1981 whereunder enquiry initiated against an employee could be continued or concluded even after an employee has attained the age of superannuation. Continuance of departmental enquiry, after superannuation, in the absence of enabling provision, has been considered in the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014), 7 SCC 260. Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that in the absence of provision existing in the Service Rules, disciplinary proceedings cannot be allowed after attaining superannuation and action of respondents in continuing with such enquiry would be without jurisdiction. Following the aforesaid view, this Court in Special Appeal Defective no. 31 of 2016,Banda District Cooperative Bank Limited and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, decided on 3.2.2016, has been pleased to hold as under :-

¶13

"On a pointed query of the Court, the learned counsel for the appellant candidly admitted that there was no provision under the U.P. Cooperative Service Regulation 1975, which may authorize continuance of the proceedings from the stage at which the defect has been noticed nor is there any provision in terms of which the proceedings may be continued and taken to their logical conclusion even after the retirement of the petitioner. We may

¶14

in this connection refer to the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & others4 as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deo Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board5 which clearly hold that once an employee has retired from service, in the absence of any authority vesting in the employer the right to continue disciplinary proceedings thereafter, the enquiry proceedings would be deemed to have lapsed and the employee would be entitled to all retiral benefits. In light of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are unable to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for a remit of the proceedings.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground warranting interference with the judgement of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is consequently dismissed."

¶16

In view of the law settled, it is not open for the respondents to proceed pursuant to show cause notice dated 21.1.2016 for the purpose of passing any order against the petitioner.

¶17

Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Show cause notices dated 21.1.2016 along with inquiry report served upon the petitioner, annexed in annexure nos. 7 and 8, are set aside. A direction is further issued to the respondent Corporation to forthwith calculate retiral dues payable to petitioner and release the same, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The respondents shall also deal with the claim of petitioner for payment of interest, on account of delayed release of retiral dues, in accordance with applicable Government Orders. The respondents shall also pass specific order with respect to payment of salary, during the period petitioner had remained under suspension, in accordance with law."

¶18

The holding of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Singh (supra) shall govern the fate of the instant case.

¶19

In wake of the preceding discussion and in view of the facts that there is no provision in the service Regulations enabling the employer to continue departmental proceedings post retirement, the impugned orders dated 31.12.2021 and 25.09.2024 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶20

The respondents are directed to release all the service

¶21

benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% .

¶22

The petitioner claims that his promotion had been unlawfully held up by the respondents on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶23

It is open to the petitioner to file a representation regarding his claim for promotion before the competent authority. In case such claim is made within a period of one month, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a further period of three months as per law.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Dhananjai

¶26

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chatru Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatru Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Alias Bhura vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kallo Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirmala Xess and Another vs Uco Bank, Zonal Office, Os Department, through Its Deputy Zonal Head Manager and 2 Others

Avnish Kumar Gautam Alias Pancholi vs State of U.P.

Kalim Siddiqui vs Regional Manager Rajye Bhandaran Nigam Lucknow and Another

Sonu vs State of U.P.