- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. The short question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether an order of punishment affecting the post retiral benefits i. e. , curtailment of pension can be passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner despite his retirement or after his retirement.
(2.) THE petitioner was in service of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. He was superannuated vide order dated 27-12-2002 on completion of 60 years of age w. e. f. 31- 12-2002. After the petitioner had retired, as per the resolution of the Board of Management dated 18-1- 2003 the pension admissible to the petitioner has been reduced by 1/3rd vide the impugned order dated 21-2-2003. In this writ petition necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the respective parties agree for the final disposal of the writ petition on their basis. Accordingly, we have heard Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Padia for the University and Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had retired on 31-12-2002 and, therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision the continuance of the disciplinary inquiry after his retirement and imposing punishment in pursuance thereof is illegal. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is uninformed by reasons as it does not record any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the contentions of the petitioner raised in reply to the show cause notice. The Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry properly and the petitioner was not given any proper hearing or opportunity to defend himself.
(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly the petitioner retired from service w. e. f. 31-12-2003. In fact, the petitioner had also challenged his above retirement and had claimed that he was entitled to continue in service till the end of the session i. e. , till 30-6-2003 but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the above claim and has confined his arguments with regard to the illegality of the impugned order of punishment dated 21-2-2003 passed on the basis of the resolution of the Board of Management dated 18-1-2003. In view of the above, the retirement of the petitioner w. e. f. 31-12- 2002 remains undisputed and stand confirmed. The record further demonstrates that a disciplinary inquiry was instituted against the petitioner vide order dated 15-12-2000 and Dr. V. S. Verma, head of the department of Agronomy was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the inquiry report a show cause notice dated 12-7-2002 was served upon the petitioner and after considering the petitioner's reply thereof the Board of Management by a resolution passed in the meeting held on 18-1-2003 decided to curtail the pension of the petitioner by 1/3rd of the amount by way of punishment. Accordingly an order to the above effect was issued on 21- 2-2003. Thus, from the above facts it transpires that the impugned order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner after his retirement curtailing his post retiral benefits.;