- (1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the charge memo dated 26.4.2008. A further direction has also been sought to be issued upon the respondent No. 2 to pay the provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. to the petitioner. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts are that the petitioner was posted as Technical Officer in U.P. Warehousing Corporation, Bareilly. He retired on reaching his age of superannuation on 31.5.2005. On his retirement he was paid only Rs. 2,60,000/- and his other dues as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance have been withheld.
(2.) The petitioner made several representations and reminders for the payment of dues. Those representations and reminders did not find any favour from the concerned officers. It is stated that after two years of his retirement on 23.1.2007 a charge memo has been issued against him in respect of alleged loss caused to the Ware House. The petitioner challenged the said charge memo mainly on the ground that the charges against the petitioner relates to more than four years old. The same charges are of 1998 and 2000. A perusal of various charges would indicate that the alleged loss mentioned in the charge memo relates back to almost four years prior to the petitioner's retirement.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulations 351-A and 470 of Civil Services Regulations, the departmental proceedings would have been initiated after the retirement in respect to the charges, which relates back, within four years. In the present case the charges are of 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. He further urged that he stood retired in the year 2005. However, the department proceedings have been initiated on 26.4.2008, after three years of his retirement. He further urged that the decision to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is arbitrary and unfair as after three years of his retirement, he has been denied his all post retiral benefits and he has been called upon to answer some of the charges pertaining to year 1998-2000. At this distance of time, he further urged that the petitioner is unable to submit his reply after his retirement.;