Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the order dated 22.4.2000 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 30.6.1987 has been challenged. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary Pathshala, Nahlora Buzurg, district Shahjahanpur. He was promoted as Head Master in 1951. Thereafter he was appointed as Assistant Teacher as Junior High School, Dhaka Ghanshyam Khand, Banda district Shahjahanpur in 1955. He was placed under suspension on 15.3.1978 by the District Basic Education Officer and a charge-sheet was served on him dated 4.4.1979 levelling following charges. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.4.1979 to the charge-sheet and the enquiry did not proceed thereafter. He retired from service as suspended employee on 30.6.1987 after attaining the age of superannuation. The retiral benefits of the petitioner were not paid to him after his superannuation. By letter dated 24.5.1997, i.e., after period of more than 10 years the petitioner demanded his retiral benefits when the District Basic Education Officer did not pay. He thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 3951 of 2000 praying for a direction to the respondents to make payment of his retiral benefits.
(3.) IN the meantime, the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 11.4.2000 directed the petitioner to appear before him regarding finalization of his retiral benefits. It is alleged that the copy of the order was not served upon the petitioner and vide order dated 22.4.2000 the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.6.1987 the date of superannuation of the petitioner from service. The contention of the petitioner is that after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1987 the order of suspension would automatically lapse after retirement. It is submitted that the disciplinary enquiry cannot continue after the retirement of an employee in view of the judgment in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others wherein the Apex Court has held that disciplinary proceedings could not be continued even for the purpose of making reduction of the retiral benefits inasmuch as there was no statutory regulations made by the Corporation for such reduction from the retiral benefits. From the facts of the case as appear from the judgment the Apex Court was of the view that there was no specific provision for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of departmental enquiry after superannuation and, as such, the corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction to the retiral benefits of the appellant. It has further been held that there was also no provision for conducting a disci-plinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision that a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. The Apex Court held that : "Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." ;