Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel who has appeared for the contesting respondent, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 24 April 1998 and 13 August 1999. The petitioner has sought the further relief of the respondents being commanded to release the entire arrears of salary with due increments as due and payable to him from time to time. The third relief is for release of pension, provident fund and gratuity together with other post retiral benefits. Insofar as the third prayer is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the post held by the petitioner was not pensionable and he, therefore, does not press this relief insofar as payment of pension is concerned.
(2.) The order dated 24 April 1998 came to be passed upon the culmination of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and noted that the petitioner who had been found guilty of the charges levelled against him would be entitled to all post retiral benefits. The order further provides that no increments would stand granted to the petitioner. It lastly held that the payment of dues, other than subsistence allowance already released and paid to the petitioner, for the period 8 June 1987 to 31 July 1998 would be considered later. By the subsequent order dated 13 August 1999, the decision taken by the Corporation on 24 April 1998 was reiterated and it was further provided that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits including salary and other emoluments for the period during which he remained under suspension apart from what had been paid to him during the said period.
(3.) The primary contentions advanced in support of the challenge to the aforementioned two orders was that the entire proceedings were taken ex parte against the petitioner and that despite the directions of this Court passed upon an earlier writ petition which came to be disposed of inter partes, the principles of fair play were not adhered to by the Corporation while inflicting punishment upon the petitioner. It was contended that the entire enquiry proceedings came to be concluded without any intimation or notice to the petitioner. The more fundamental objection which is taken to the orders impugned revolves around the fact that although the petitioner had retired from service on 31 January 1998, the impugned orders came to be passed post the superannuation of the petitioner. Sri Tripathi submitted that the service rules which govern the conditions of service of the petitioner do not provide for a continuance of enquiry proceedings initiated against the delinquent employee post his retirement. He submits that once the petitioner had retired from service, no authority vested in the respondents either to continue the disciplinary proceedings or to inflict the orders of punishments which stand impugned herein. In support of his above submission, Sri Tripathi placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. And Others, (1999) 3 JT 666 and the reiteration of the principles enunciated therein in Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow Adn Others, (2014) 7 JT 260;