- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE present appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the High court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow bench) on February 24, 2006 in Writ Petition no. 484 (S/b) of 2000. Necessary facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent herein was serving with the appellant- U. P. State Sugar corporation Ltd. ("corporation" for short) as resident Engineer at the Head Office of the corporation at Lucknow. On January 13, 2000, a show cause notice was issued to him stating therein that a work was allotted to M/s Gupta and Co. , Dehradoon for construction of residential houses in Saharanpur. The contractor had given two Fixed Deposit receipts (FDRs) towards the security for the work to be done. The details of FDRs were given in the notice. It was alleged that the corporation suffered loss of Rupees one lakh due to lack of precaution, irregularity, gross negligence and carelessness by the respondent. The respondent was, therefore, called upon to submit explanation within three days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. On January 15, 2000, the respondent submitted his reply denying the allegations and contending that he had not committed any illegality and there was no justification to ask for his explanation. The corporation was not satisfied with the reply filed by the respondent and decided to hold departmental inquiry against him. On January 31, 2000, therefore, show cause notice was issued to the respondent for the losses caused to the Corporation due to negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondent. It may be noted at this stage that the respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation (60 years) on the same day, i. e. January 31, 2000. According to the respondent, since he retired from service on january 31, 2000, no proceedings could have been initiated against him and issuance of show cause notice which was received by him after office hours at 6. 45 p. m. on January 31, 2000 was illegal as there was no relationship of employer and employee between the corporation and him. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench on April 11, 2000. In the petition a prayer was made for quashing charge-sheet and departmental proceedings. During the pendency of the petition, however, two orders came to be passed against the respondent on March 24, 2001 and April 26, 2005. By the first order of March 24, 2001, an amount of Rupees one lakh was ordered to be recovered from the respondent as the corporation suffered loss of the said amount which was ordered to be adjusted from the gratuity of the respondent. By the second order dated April 26, 2005, an amount of rs. 73,235-50ps which was = portion of the amount of Rs. 1,46,471. 00ps was directed to be recovered as loss had been caused to the corporation due to negligence of the respondent. The respondent sought amendment in the petition and challenged the above two orders as well. The High Court, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petition holding that the order dated January 31, 2000 commencing disciplinary inquiry against the writ petitioner was illegal as he had retired on that day. No proceedings, hence, could have been initiated against him. Consequently, orders passed in 2001 and 2005 could not have been made and they were liable to be quashed. The Corporation was directed to pay to the writ petitioner all the benefits of gratuity, leave encashment and other dues payable to him with interest @ 8% p. a. from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High court, the Corporation has approached this court.
(3.) ON July 28, 2006, notice was issued by this Court. Since contempt proceedings were initiated by the writ petitioner in the meantime, who succeeded before the High Court, this Court stayed those proceedings. Counter-affidavit and affidavit-in-rejoinder were filed thereafter and the matter was ordered to be placed for final hearing. That is how the matter has been placed before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.;