- (1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for respondents-Corporation. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the punishment order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Lucknow, as also the appellate order dated 19.10.2011.
(2.) According to the petitioner's Counsel, the petitioner while working on the post of Warehouse Superintendent attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2010 and prior to his superannuation, a charge sheet dated 19.3.2008 was served upon the petitioner with respect to causing loss to the Corporation to which petitioner submitted his reply on 3.4.2008 indicating therein that the petitioner had worked as Go-down Superintendent at the relevant time but except the natural loss no loss had accrued in any manner to the Corporation. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 24.4.2008 to the Competent Authority but no final order was passed and the matter remained pending. In the interregnum, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.2010 and retired from service. Ultimately, on 17.2.2011, impugned order of punishment has been passed for recovery of Rs. 2,97,184.77/- from the petitioner. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was deducted from the amount of leave encashment and the petitioner has been asked to deposit the remaining amount.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner while pointing the defects in the impugned orders vehemently argued that in the U.P. State Warehousing Staff Regulations, there is no provision of conducting inquiry or continue inquiry after retirement of an employee. Further, provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations also do not apply to the employees of the State Warehousing Corporation.;