M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) This is second round of litigation. The petitioner - Lekhraj Shrichandani (now dead) through his Legal Heirs (hereafter referred to as 'the employee', for the convenience), was removed from service vide order dated 28.1.1986. The order of removal was challenged by maintaining SBCWP No. 439/1989. Aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 9.8.1999. The order of removal dated 28.1.1986 was set aside, however, disciplinary authority was given liberty to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the employee. Prior to the date of judgment, the employee attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1997. The respondent Bank, accordingly, filed a review petition followed by special appeal showing their difficulty to hold departmental proceedings against an employee already attained the age of superannuation. The appeal so preferred by the respondent Bank was decided vide order dated 17.1.2001 with liberty to proceed with the inquiry and pass appropriate order after affording opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. The respondent Bank then passed another order of removal on 22.10.2001. The appeal against the said order of punishment was also dismissed by the respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that challenge to the order of removal is mainly on two grounds. First ground is that order of punishment dated 22.10.2001 is given retrospective effect, thereby employee is removed w.e.f. 28.1.1986 whereas order of removal cannot be from retrospective date. This is more so when earlier order of removal was set aside by this Court. The second ground of the challenge is that employee had attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1997, thus order of removal could not have been passed against a person, already retired from service.
(3.) To support his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Moti Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1994(2) WLC (Raj.) 730 . Therein, it was held that termination of an employee after retirement is not legal. Still, in the instant case, order of removal has been passed against the employee after his retirement from the service. Another judgment in the case of Jeevaratnam (R.) v. State of Madras Civil Appeal No. 232 of 1965 decided on 13th October, 1965 has been referred wherein it was held that an order of dismissal cannot be passed from retrospective date.;