- (1.) HEARD Mr. Asif Hasan, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought the review of order dated 25.07.2014 passed by me in writ petition No. 1881 (SS) of 2011 on the grounds that during the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P. Co -operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, 2014 3 UPLBEC 1749, but the Court has escaped from noticing the same. It is further stated that the Court has also escaped to appreciate the relevant rules which do not vest power to the disciplinary authority to continue with the inquiry after petitioner's retirement.
(3.) AFTER reading over the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Dev Prakash Tewari I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the matter governed under the U.P. Co -operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 and observed that there is no provision in the Regulations, 1975 for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement. In this case before initiation of inquiry in the second inning, the employee had retired from service. This Court dealt with the case on hand under the U.P. Subordinates Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals Rules)1976 and passed the order on the premise that Rules, 1976 do not restrict the continuation of inquiry even after retirement. However, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that unless there is a express provision under the rules to continue with the disciplinary proceedings after retirement, the Disciplinary Authority has no jurisdiction to continue with the same after retirement of the delinquent employee. In support of his submission he drew attention of this Court towards paragraph 9 of the judgment of Dev Prakash Tewari which is reproduced as Under: "9. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.03.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceedings even for the purpose of Imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits.";