- (1.) The present review application under Chapter-V Rule 12 of High Court Rules has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the judgement and order dated 26.2.2015.
(2.) As per record, this much is reflected that Irfan Ahmad-the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Clerk in the office of District Manager, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd, Meerut on 30.3.1973. In the year 2000, he was posted as Incharge of Sikandarabad Godown, District Bulandshahr. On 20.11.2000 he found that lock of one godown was broken and 200 bags of wheat approximately 100 quintals were taken away. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner in which the police submitted the final report. On 23.12.2000 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was served upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.8.2001. The enquiry officer submitted the report on 18.11.2002. By order dated 6.2.2003 the respondent no.2 jointly held the petitioner along with the District Manager guilty of loss and directed that 50% of the total loss of Rs.3,11,333/- be recovered from him. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.20540 of 2003 and the said writ petition was allowed on 05.4.2012 and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority for holding the enquiry afresh. In the meantime, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 20.8.2011. As per directives issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the enquiry officer held the enquiry afresh and submitted the enquiry report to the respondent no.2 on 7.11.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 5.12.2012 and the petitioner submitted his objections to the said enquiry report on 27.12.2012. Finally, the respondent no.2 again held the petitioner guilty of causing loss to the Corporation vide order dated 3.8.2012 and directed recovery of Rs.1,91,129.80 from him. The said order was assailed by means of Writ A No.12264 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 26.2.2015 had proceeded to allow the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Prakash Tiwari vs. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and others Civil Appeal No (s) 5848-49 of 2014 decided on June 30,2014. The Court was of the opinion that once the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 20.8.2011, then there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing with the departmental proceedings for imposing any major penalty. The Court had observed that the retiral benefits, which were liable to be paid to the petitioner, could not be withheld and the petitioner was entitled to get all retiral benefits. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 3.8.2014 was set aside.
(3.) As per record, this much is also reflected that the respondents had filed Civil Misc. Review Application No.85687 of 2015 for reviewing the order dated 26.2.2015 and this Court had proceeded to reject the said review application on 26.5.2015 on the ground that no good ground was made out to review the aforesaid order. The said order was assailed by the respondents in Special Appeal Defective No.471 of 2015 (U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd and 3 ors vs. Irfan Ahmad) and a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 21.7.2015 had proceeded to dismiss the aforesaid Special Appeal with following observations:- "The learned Single Judge has followed the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court. Once it is not in dispute that there was no provision in the Service Regulations authorising the employer to continue with the enquiry after the retirement of an employee, the order for the recovery of an amount of Rs.1,91,129.80 was misconceived and was rightly quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge was not in error in directing the payment of the retiral dues to the respondent. For these reasons, we find no merit in the special appeal. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.";