# Jai Prakash Awasthi v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1851 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-15 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 8315 of 2022 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-awasthi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54434 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 4 All. Jai Prakash Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1851 (2026) 4 ILRA 1851 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 8315 of 2022 Jai Prakash Awasthi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether in the absence of an explicit rule or regulation permitting the continuation, a disciplinary proceedings can continue after retirement? Headnotes A. Service Law - In absence of any provision under the Regulation and Rules, no disciplinary proceeding can continue after the retirement. (Para 11) The petitioner was working as a Godown Man / Centre In Charge / In Charge District Manager. On 02.06.2011, he was placed under suspension due to certain allegations, and an inquiry officer was appointed. Because the inquiry was not completed in time, the petitioner's suspension was revoked on 18.06.2012, though he remained attached to the office. The petitioner subsequently reached the age of superannuation and retired on 30.06.2014. The respondents refused to release his retiral dues, citing the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. Nearly seven years after his retirement, on 22.03.2021, the General Manager concluded the disciplinary proceeding and passed a punishment order directing a recovery of Rs. 8,80,230/- from the petitioner. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena (infra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has precisely considered this aspect of the matter and recorded finding that in absence of any Rule, Regulation or Act, no disciplinary proceeding can go on after the retirement, therefore, due to continuation of disciplinary proceeding in absence of provision of Rules or Regulation, the order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside by this Court. (Para 13) In the present case, the disciplinary proceeding continued after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.6.2014 and impugned order of recovery was passed on 22.03.2021, therefore, the order is per se illegal and is not sustainable in law. (Para 12) The order dated 22.03.2021, being contrary to the Rules, is quashed. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of retiral dues as well as arrears of salary, if any, to the petitioner with 8 % interest. Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Case Law Cited 1. Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation, 1999 (3) SCC 666 (Para 7) 2. Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board Lucknow and others, 2014 (7) SCC 260 (Para 7) 3. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, 2008 (1) SCC 352 (Para 8) 1852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES List of Keywords absence, provision, regulation, rule, continuation, disciplinary, proceeding, sustainable, suspension, retirement. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Som Kartik Shukla For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Surya Prakash Singh (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1/ State and Sri Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was working on the post of Godown Man/ Centre In Charge, Manjhanpur/ In charge District Manager, Koshambi, Allahabad Division. Vide order dated 2.6.2011, the respondent No.4 placed the petitioner under suspension on certain allegation and the petitioner was attached with the Accounts Officer (Audit), office of the respondent No.4. To conduct the enquiry, Enquiry Officer was appointed with direction to conclude the enquiry within a month and submit report. 3. The enquiry was not completed, thus, the petitioner submitted his representation before the respondent No.4 on 22.12.2011 and 30.4.2012 for cancellation of the suspension order. In pursuance to the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, vide order dated 18.6.2012, the respondent No.4 revoked the order of suspension of the petitioner vide order dated 2.6.2011 and he was attached with the office of respondent No.4. On 4.4.2014, the respondent No.4 issued an order that the petitioner will retire from service on 30.6.2014. No dues certificate in respect of the petitioner to be issued by 30.4.2014, clearing all dues against him so that due amount may be recovered from the petitioner's due and rest may be paid to him within time. It was further directed that no dues certificate cannot be issued during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner retired from the post of Godown Man on 30.6.2014 after attaining the age of superannuation. 4. In spite of that, no retiral dues were paid to the petitioner. The detail of the payable dues has been referred in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. Due to non payment of retiral dues, the petitioner filed a representation on 26.9.2014 before the respondents through registered post with the request for payment of retiral dues but no action was taken. Due to non taking of action by the respondents in the representation filed by the petitioner, he again filed a representation on 5.11.2014 before the respondents through registered post. Due to non passing of the order, feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7042 (S/S) of 2014 and direction was issued to the respondents to ensure payment of retiral dues to the petitioner including retiral/ pensionary benefits alongwith the interest at the rate of 12 % and the writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 5.12.2014, directing the respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner for the payment of retiral benefits in accordance with law, within three months. 5. The respondent No.3 decided and rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 13.2.2015 stating that till the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is finalized, no dues 4 All. Jai Prakash Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1853 could be paid to him. The order passed on 13.2.2015 was challenged in Writ-A No.2505 of 2015, wherein direction was issued to complete the pleadings and the writ petition is still pending consideration. The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2022. An application for restoration/ recall of the order was filed which was allowed and the writ petition was restored. Thereafter, after the conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, an order of punishment was passed on 22.3.2021 by the General Manager, which is under challenge before this Court, whereby an order was passed for recovery of Rs.8,80,230/-. 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision under the Regulation that after the retirement, disciplinary proceeding can continue, therefore, his submission is that in absence of provision under the Regulation, disciplinary proceeding could not be continued after the retirement i.e. 30.6.2014. Next submission is that on the basis of conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, the order impugned dated 22.3.2021 has been passed, which is wholly illegal, arbitrary inasmuch as contrary to the settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Next submission is that the order impugned dated 22.3.2021 is per se illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In support of the submission advanced on the point that in case there is no provision under the Regulation, Rules and Act to continue the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement, no proceeding can continue after the retirement, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments :- (i) Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Orissa State Financial Corporation [1999 (3) SCC 666]. (ii) Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board Lucknow and others [2014 (7) Supreme Court Cases 260]. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not place in the notice of this Court in regard to continuation of disciplinary proceeding after the retirement under any Rule applicable to the service condition of the petitioner. He submits that the impugned order is just and valid and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon [2008 (1) Supreme Court Cases 352]. 9. After having heard the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the law reports cited by the parties. 10. For deciding the controversy involved, paragraphs 5 to 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari (Supra), wherein the judgment Bhagirathi Jena (Supra) has also been considered, are being quoted as under :- "5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The facts are not in dispute. The High Court while quashing the earlier disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in its order dated 10.1.2006 granted liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance with the Regulations. The appellant who was reinstated in service on 26.4.2006 and 1854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 7.7.2006 and while that was pending, the appellant attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2009. There is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the appellant nor there is any provision stating that in case misconduct is established a deduction could be made from his retiral benefits. 6. An occasion came before this Court to consider the continuance of disciplinary inquiry in similar circumstance in Bhagirathi Jena?s case (supra) and it was laid down as follows: " 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3) (c) of Regulation-44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It reads thus : "44. (3) (c) When the employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and make a specific order : (i) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and (ii) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period on duty." 6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation. 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95 there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement." 7. In the subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation case (supra) on facts, the disciplinary proceeding against employee was quashed by the High Court since no opportunity of hearing was given to him in the inquiry and the management in its appeal before this Court sought for grant of liberty to hold a fresh inquiry and this Court held that charges levelled against the employee were not minor in nature, and therefore, it would not be proper to foreclose the right of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry only on the ground that the employee has since retired from the service and accordingly granted the liberty sought for by the management. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision in Bhagirathi Jena?s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court and no contention was raised pertaining to the provisions under 4 All. Jai Prakash Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1855 which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and as such no ratio came to be laid down. In our view the said decision cannot help the respondents herein. 8. Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits. 9. The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and upto the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him. 10. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No costs." 11. On perusal of the extract of the judgments, it is crystal clear that in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (Supra) and Dev Prakash Tewari (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of any provision under the Regulation and Rules, no disciplinary proceeding can continue after the retirement. 12. In the present case, the disciplinary proceeding continued after the retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30.6.2014 and impugned order of recovery was passed on 22.3.2021, therefore, the order is per se illegal and is not sustainable in law. In absence of any provision to continue the disciplinary proceeding after the retirement, no disciplinary proceeding can continue after the retirement. 13. In the case of Bhagirathi Jena (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has precisely considered this aspect of the matter and recorded finding that in absence of any Rule, Regulation or Act, no disciplinary proceeding can go on after the retirement, therefore, due to continuation of disciplinary proceeding in absence of provision of Rules or Regulation, the order is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has relied upon a judgment in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (Supra). I have gone through the aforesaid judgment. In absence of any provision under the Act, Rules or Regulation in regard to continuation of disciplinary proceeding applicable to the petitioner, the ratio of the judgment is not applicable neither the case of Bhagirathi Jena (Supra) was taken into consideration while passing the judgment, therefore, it is distinguishable in nature and is not applicable to the case in hand. 1856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 15. In view of the reasons recorded above and the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 22.3.2021, being contrary to the Rules, is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 16. The respondents are directed to ensure payment of retiral dues as well as arrears of salary, if any, to the petitioner with 8 % interest, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1856 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 8349 of 2011 Smt. Kavita Chaturvedi & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether the State could deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioners from the post of Telephone Operator to Lower Division Assistant (LDA) based on an omission in the statutory service rules, even though similarly situated employees had already been granted the same promotion under a 1988 Government Order? Headnotes A. Service Law - The petitioners were working as Telephone Operators in the Board of Revenue. They challenged an order dated 20.12.2000 that rejected their claims for promotion to the post of Lower Division Assistant (LDA). They argued that under a GO dated September 6, 1988, Telephone Operators were explicitly eligible for promotion to vacant LDA posts. Furthermore, three of their predecessors had already been promoted under this policy in 1990 and 1994. The State argued that the U.P. Board of Revenue Ministerial Service Rules, 1983 did not contain any statutory provision for promoting Telephone Operators to LDA posts. They contended that executive G.O.s cannot override statutory rules and that the promotional claim was legally invalid. B. The 1983 Service Rules omitted "Telephone Operators" simply because the posts were created later, in 1986. The 1988 G.O. was specifically issued by the State to bridge this legislative gap and prevent employee stagnation. (Para 18, 22) C. Violation of Article 14 - The State had already adopted the 1988 policy and promoted three similarly situated Telephone Operators. Denying the same benefit to the petitioners-while 22 LDA posts sat vacantconstituted unconstitutional discrimination u/Article 14. (Para 21) D. Approbate and Reprobate - The Court emphasized that the State cannot accept a policy for one set of individuals and reject it for another under identical circumstances without a rational basis. (Para 23, 24)