PREM PRAKASH MANIKTALIA Vs. STATE OF U P AND 4 ORS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-610
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 19,2018

Prem Prakash Maniktalia Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And 4 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Manu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
(2.) Petitioner by the instant writ petition is assailing the appellate order dated 19 May 2012, affirming the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, whereby, his pension has been reduced by 3%. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute. Petitioner was served chargesheet to which petitioner replied, however, during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28 February 2011 from the post of Executive Engineer. The sole ground pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner is unsustainable for the reason that under the rules and regulations applicable to the servants of the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) departmental enquiry cannot be continued after retirement of the employee. In other words, there is no rule conferring power upon the Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceedings against an employee after retirement. Petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Keshav Deo Pandey v. Chairman & Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & others, 2012 11 ADJ 625; and Supreme Court order dated 1 March 2013, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil No. 8568 of 2013) 'Chairman & Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. & others vs. Keshav Deo Pandey' affirming the decision of the Division Bench.
(3.) Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the provisions of the U.P. State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.) Officers and Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 (Regularions 1975), to urge that Regulations 1975, which is applicable upon the petitioner does not contain any provision to enable the respondent-Corporation to continue the disciplinary proceeding after retirement.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.