Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged non -release of leave encashment.
(2.) AFTER filing of the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that some proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for a loss of Rupees seven lakh and as soon as the said proceedings are finalized, leave encashment of the petitioner would be released. The Court has put a specific query to the Counsel for the opposite parties that whether the Service Rules permit initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the petitioner. Learned Counsel replied that U.P. Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation (for short "the Service Rules") in this regard are silent. It has also been stated that Regulation 351 -A of the Civil Services Regulations has not been adopted by the Corporation.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments rendered in the case of U.P. State Warehousing Corp., Lucknow v. Sri Brish Bhan Singh and another, ( : 2011 (29) LCD 1489) and Ravindra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, ( : (2013) 1 UPLBEC 86). Learned Counsel has submitted that in identical situation, this Court has taken a view that power to initiate disciplinary proceedings is not vested with the opposite parties after retirement of the petitioner. Regulation 351 -A of the Civil Services Regulations has not been adopted and Service Rules also do not permit initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. Submission, therefore, is that once this Court has settled the legal position, the action of the opposite parties is wholly illegal and without authority of law and initiation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement cannot be sustained in law. It has also been submitted that no notice whatsoever has been issued or served upon the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that if any proceedings are going on, then they are ex -parte behind back of the petitioner and without his knowledge.;