Chetan Swaroop Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugar Industry

Heard Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, and Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

Under challenge are the orders dated 19.03.2024 and 17.07.2023, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition. Vide order dated 19.03.2024 the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 17.07.2023 has been rejected. Vide order dated 17.07.2023 the petitioner has been awarded punishment by the Disciplinary Authority.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020. A few days prior to his retirement, he had been served with a charge sheet dated 17.04.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition.

Placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional service Board, Lucknow and others - (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others - (1999) 3 SCC 666, the contention is that there cannot be any inquiry after retirement against the employees of the U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited and thus the respondents have patently erred in passing the impugned punishment order and rejecting the appeal more particularly when the inquiry has been proceeded against the petitioner subsequent to his retirement and the punishment orders have been passed.

To the aforesaid proposition of law as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) and Bhagirathi Jena (supra) Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan and learned Standing Counsel do not dispute.

However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench