Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after superannuation in the absence of specific statutory rules or regulations.

The petitioner, a Godown Man/Centre In Charge, was placed under suspension on June 2, 2011, pending an inquiry

The suspension was revoked on June 18, 2012, and he subsequently retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on June 30, 2014

Despite retirement, his retiral dues were withheld on the grounds of the pending disciplinary proceeding

Following a previous writ petition (No. 7042 of 2014) and subsequent rejection of his representation, the disciplinary proceeding concluded seven years post-retirement, resulting in an order dated March 22, 2021, which directed the recovery of Rs. 8,80,230/- from the petitioner

The petitioner challenged this punishment order as being without legal authority after retirement

The Court applied the principle that disciplinary proceedings lapse upon retirement unless the relevant service rules or regulations specifically provide for their initiation or continuation post-superannuation.

in the absence of such authority, a corporation cannot reduce retiral benefits

without enabling provisions, an inquiry lapses upon retirement and the employee is entitled to full benefits

The Court noted that the respondent (State/Department) failed to produce any Rule or Regulation applicable to the petitioner’s service that authorized the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement

Applying the ratio from Dev Prakash Tewari, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner retired on June 30, 2014, and the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations (or similar rules) contained no provision for post-retirement inquiries or deductions for established misconduct, the proceedings effectively lapsed on the date of superannuation

Consequently, the disciplinary authority lacked the legal jurisdiction to conclude the inquiry or pass the recovery order on March 22, 2021

The Court held that any action taken after the employee ceased to be in service, without legislative or regulatory backing, was per se illegal and arbitrary

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated March 22, 2021, was quashed

The respondents were directed to ensure payment of all retiral dues and arrears of salary to the petitioner, along with 8% interest per annum, within three months