DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was working as Storekeeper with the respondent and retired on 30.11.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. On retirement, the petitioner was entitled for all retiral benefits i.e leave encashment, provident fund, Group Insurance Scheme and Gratuity but the same were not released to him. He, therefore, submitted a legal notice dated 30.12.2010 to release his retiral benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.19364 of 2012 which was disposed of on the ground that the reasons have been mentioned in the written statement and hence, no directions were issued. As per stand taken in the written statement, the retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner because a charge sheet was issued to him after his retirement.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed for quashing of rejection order on the ground that there is no provision under the Staff Service Rules of The Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, 1975 (here -in -after called as 'Rules, 1975') to either issue a charge sheet or hold disciplinary proceedings against the retired employees. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in case S.C. Jain vs Managing Director, The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co -operative Wholesale Stores Limited and another passed in CWP No.15247 of 2011, decided on 22.05.2013, wherein, it was held that when there is no provision in the rules that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the retired employees and on this ground, the charge sheet issued after his retirement was set aside being without jurisdiction and the directions were issued to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has also not disputed the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in S.C. Jain's case (supra). Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the file. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service as a Storekeeper on 30.11.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not disputed that the retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner on his retirement and the same were withheld because of charge sheet issued to him subsequent to his retirement. The petitioner is governed by Rules, 1975. The relevant provisions of the said Rules, 1975 are extracted as under : - "2. Definition : xx xx xx (c) "Service means the service of The Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. xx xx xx (e) The "Board" means the Board of Directors of The Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. xx xx xx (s) "Penalty" means censure, with -holding of increments, demotion, reduction to the lower post of time scale, removal or dismissal of any employee. xx xx xx 26.3 Penalties for misconduct : An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may be awarded any one or more of the following punishments apart from the recovery of actual loss or damage caused by him to the Federation. (i) Depriving from payment of bonus. (ii) Withholding of annual increments. (iii) Barring of promotion to the higher -grade post for a specific period. (iv) Reversion to a lower grade post. (v) Suspension (Deleted by RCS vide letter No.21/9/88/ CS -I dated 23.8.89). (vi) Dismissal. (vii) Fine not exceeding Rs. 250/ - (viii) Termination of service. 26.4 An employee found guilty of minor misconduct may be awarded any one of the following punishments according to the gravity of his misconduct : a) Be warned or censure. b) Have his increments stopped for a period of not longer than six months. c) Be fined (where a fine is imposed, it shall not exceed 1/3 of the monthly wages of the employee)."
(3.) ON perusal of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the penalties, as provided under the Rules, 1975, can be imposed upon an employee, who is drawing salary, either appointed on temporary or permanent basis. It is also clear that the penalty can be imposed only on an employee but after retirement, the petitioner cannot be termed as an employee and as such, no penalty can be inflicted upon him.;