# Smt. Luxmi Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 63
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-21
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 595 of 2022
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-luxmi-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47911
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations, 1975 - Civil Services
Regulations - Article 351-A - In the
absence
of
any
provision
in
the
Regulations governing the service of an
employee providing for continuation of
disciplinary proceedings after retirement,
the
respondent
cannot
continue
the
disciplinary
proceedings
after
the
employee's superannuation. (Para 10)

There
was
no
provision
in
the
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Employees
Service
Regulations, 1975 for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against retired employees or for
continuing disciplinary proceedings even when
they
started
before
retirement
of
the
employee concerned. Late Ram Nazar Singh
retired on 31.07.2018. At that time, there was
no provision in the Cooperative Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
retired employees. (Para 5)

B. The husband of the petitioner was on
a non pensionable post and therefore,
any
Regulation
which
permits
the
respondents
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings for recovery from pension
and other retrial dues of such an
employee including Article 351-A of the
Civil Services Regulations shall not be
applicable.
The
Court
also
held
that
contesting respondent was entitled to interest
on the amount payable to him. (Para 7, 12)

C. The disciplinary proceedings initiated
is without jurisdiction - The St. of U.P.,
notified
the
XXII
Amendment
to
the
Regulations of 1975 but it provided the date
of enforcement as the date of publication in
the Gazette. Publication was made only on
27.08.2018 in the official Gazette. Hence, no
retrospective operation can be given to
the Regulations and the Registrar could
not have given sanction on 09.02.2021
for initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the husband of the petitioner no.

## Text

11 All. Smt. Luxmi Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
63
oral statement recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. and other material on
record. Defect in the format or form of the
protest petition or for the reason that the list
of witnesses was not submitted cannot be
given importance out of proportion at this
stage. If done, it will tantamount to taking
too technical a view. In my opinion, no
ground for interference under Article 227 is
made out, hence the petition is dismissed.

11. Let copy of this order be certified
to the court concerned.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 63
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVILL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ A No. 595 of 2022

Smt. Luxmi Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Krishna Mohan Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jai Bahadur Singh

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations, 1975 - Civil Services
Regulations - Article 351-A - In the
absence
of
any
provision
in
the
Regulations governing the service of an
employee providing for continuation of
disciplinary proceedings after retirement,
the
respondent
cannot
continue
the
disciplinary
proceedings
after
the
employee's superannuation. (Para 10)

There
was
no
provision
in
the
U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Employees
Service
Regulations, 1975 for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against retired employees or for
continuing disciplinary proceedings even when
they
started
before
retirement
of
the
employee concerned. Late Ram Nazar Singh
retired on 31.07.2018. At that time, there was
no provision in the Cooperative Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings against
retired employees. (Para 5)

B. The husband of the petitioner was on
a non pensionable post and therefore,
any
Regulation
which
permits
the
respondents
to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings for recovery from pension
and other retrial dues of such an
employee including Article 351-A of the
Civil Services Regulations shall not be
applicable.
The
Court
also
held
that
contesting respondent was entitled to interest
on the amount payable to him. (Para 7, 12)

C. The disciplinary proceedings initiated
is without jurisdiction - The St. of U.P.,
notified
the
XXII
Amendment
to
the
Regulations of 1975 but it provided the date
of enforcement as the date of publication in
the Gazette. Publication was made only on
27.08.2018 in the official Gazette. Hence, no
retrospective operation can be given to
the Regulations and the Registrar could
not have given sanction on 09.02.2021
for initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the husband of the petitioner no.
1. (Para 11)

The amendment which was carried out in the
Regulations of 1975 was notified only on
27.08.2018 and was made applicable with
immediate effect. Hence no retrospective
operation can be given in the case of the
husband of the petitioner no. 1. The
disciplinary proceedings initiated against late
husband of the petitioner no. 1 is without
jurisdiction as he retired on 31.07.2018 much
before the amendment in the Regulation was
notified with prospective effect. (Para 9, 13)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Dev Prakash Tiwari Vs U.P. Cooperative
Institutional Service Board, Lucknow & ors.,
(2014) 7 SCC 260 (Para 5)

2. Brahmanand Tyagi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2022
(8) ADJ 624 (Para 7)

3. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & anr.
Vs Public Services Tribunal, U.P. & ors., 2008 (2)
ADJ 11 (Para 7)

4. Bhagirathi Jena Vs Orissa St. Financial
Corporation, (1999) 3 SCC 666 (Para 10)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
16.10.2021, passed by Chief Executive
Officer,
Fatehpur
District
Cooperative
Bank Ltd., Fatehpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned
counsel who appears on behalf of the
respondent nos.2 and 3.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioners who are the widow and son of
Late Ram Nazar Singh challenging the order
dated 16.10.2021 passed by the Chief
Executive
Officer,
Fatehpur
District
Cooperative Bank Ltd. Fatehpur and praying
for direction to be issued to the respondentBank to release post retiral benefits of the
deceased employee with admissible interest.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
they are legal heirs of late Ram Nazar Singh
who retired as a Grade-II employee of
Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Fatehpur on 31.07.2018. At the time of his
retirement, he was not placed under
suspension and no charge-sheet was issued to
him and no disciplinary proceedings were
proposed against him. On 27.08.2018, an
amendment was carried out in the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations, 1975 by which Regulations 85
was amended and sub-Regulations (XI) and
(XII) were added by which Rules regarding
disciplinary proceedings after retirement of
an employee, shall be applicable for
employee of Cooperative Societies as were
applicable to the retired employees of the
State Government and the sanction was to be
obtained not from His Excellency the
Governor of U.P., but from the Registrar who
was the Competent Authority to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against such retired
employees.

4. On 02.02.2021, the respondent-Bank
appointed an Inquiry Officer and on
24.02.2021, charge-sheet was served upon
the husband of the petitioner no.1. He replied
to the charge-sheet but the disciplinary
proceedings remained pending and the
husband of the petitioner no.1 died on
02.09.2021. The inquiry report was submitted
much after the death of the deceased
employee on 30.09.2021. No show cause
notice was issued to the deceased employee
regarding proposed punishment as he was not
alive and the punishment order was issued on
16.10.2021 based on the resolution of the
Committee of Management dated 05.10.2021
by which it was resolved to recover an
amount of Rs.11,80,363/- along with interest
from the retiral dues of late Ram Nazar Singh
as he was found guilty of causing loss to the
Society.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that late Ram Nazar Singh
retired on 31.07.2018. At that time, there
was no provision in the Cooperative
Societies Employees Service Regulations,
1975
for
initiation
of
disciplinary
proceedings against retired employees. This
question has been settled finally by the
Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in
11 All. Smt. Luxmi Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
65
Dev
Prakash
Tewari
Vs.
U.P.
Cooperative Institutional Service Board,
Lucknow and others, [(2014) 7 SCC 260]
where the Supreme Court observed that
there was no provision in the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations,
1975
for
initiation
of
disciplinary proceedings against retired
employees or for continuing disciplinary
proceedings even when they were started
before
retirement
of
the
employee
concerned.

6. It has also been argued by learned
counsel for the petitioners that in case of
late Ram Nazar Singh, no disciplinary
proceedings were initiated before his
retirement. The amendment in the Service
Regulations came to be notified only on
27.08.2018 with immediate effect. They
were not retrospective in nature. Hence
they could not be made to apply to an
already retired employee. The Inquiry
Officer being appointed on 02.02.2021 and
charge-sheet being served on 24.02.2021
was
completely
without
jurisdiction.
Although the respondents say in their
counter affidavit that the Registrar the
Competent Authority under the amended
Regulations had issued an order granting
sanction for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings after retirement of late Ram
Nazar Singh, a perusal of the order referred
to in the counter affidavit as CA-1 dated
09.02.2021 would show that the Registrar
had initially raised a doubt regarding the
admissibility of initiation of disciplinary
proceedings.

7. It has also been argued by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the husband
of the petitioner was on a non pensionable
post and therefore, any Regulation which
permits
the
respondents
to
initiate
disciplinary proceedings for recovery from
pension and other retiral dues of such an
employee including Article 351-A of the
Civil Services Regulations shall not be
applicable.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has placed reliance upon a
coordinate Bench decision in Brahamand
Tyagi Vs. State of UP. and others [2022
(8) ADJ 624] where the coordinate Bench
had placed reliance upon a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another
Vs. Public Services Tribunal, U.P. and
others [2008 (2) ADJ 11].

8. It has been argued by Sri J.B. Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that the Competent Authority for
issuance of sanction for initiation of
disciplinary proceedings against late Ram
Nazar Singh, is the Registrar of the
Cooperative Society and he had already given
consent in the matter. A copy of such order
passed on 09.02.2021 has been filed as
Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. Learned
counsel for the respondents has referred to
the amendment carried out in the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations, 2018 by the XXII Amendment
making applicable Article 351-A of the Civil
Services Regulation to the employees of
Cooperative Societies. It has also been argued
by learned counsel for the respondents that
the Regulations were amended on 27.08.2018
and in the said amendment, there was no bar
for initiating disciplinary proceedings against
the retired employees who had caused loss to
the Cooperative Society.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in
rejoinder has submitted that the amendment
which was carried out in the Regulations of
1975 was notified only on 27.08.2018 and
was made applicable with immediate effect.
Hence no retrospective operation can be
given in the case of the husband of the
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner no.1 and the judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in the case of Dev
Prakash Tewari (supra) shall squarely
applly as at the time of retirement, there was
no Regulation permitting such initiation of
disciplinary
proceedings
or
their
continuation.

10. This Court has carefully considered
the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court
in Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) where the
Supreme Court had followed the judgment
rendered by it earlier in Bhagirathi Jena Vs.
Orissa State Financial Corporation [(1999)
3 SCC 666] where it was held that in the
absence of any provision in the Regulations
governing the service of an employee
providing for continuation of disciplinary
proceedings after retirement, the respondent
cannot continue the disciplinary proceedings
after the employee's superannuation.

11. The State of U.P., no doubt notified
the XXII Amendment to the Regulations of
1975 but it provided the date of enforcement
as the date of publication in the Gazette.
Publication was made only on 27.08.2018 in
the official Gazette. Hence, no retrospective
operation can be given to the Regulations and
the Registrar could not have given sanction
on 09.02.2021 for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against the husband of the
petitioner no.1.

12. This Court has also considered the
Division Bench judgment in the case of
Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
(supra), while placing reliance upon the
judgment rendered in Bhagirathi Jena
(supra), the Division Bench observed that the
post of contesting respondent being non
pensionable, Article 351-A of Civil Services
Regulation was not applicable. After the date
of
superannuation,
the
disciplinary
proceedings could not go on in the absence of
any specific provision. The Court also held
that contesting respondent was entitled to
interest on the amount payable to him.

13. Having considered the judgments
rendered by this Court and by the Supreme
Court and the facts as mentioned in the
pleadings on record regarding which there is no
dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against late husband of the petitioner no.1 is
without jurisdiction as he retired on 31.07.2018
much before the amendment in the Regulation
was notified with prospective effect.

14. The proceedings initiated against
late Ram Nazar Singh being without
jurisdiction are liable to be quashed and are
quashed. The writ petition is allowed.

15. Consequential benefits shall be
available to the petitioners. Recovery of
Rs.11,80,363/- from the gratuity and other
services benefits of late Ram Nazar Singh, if
the same has been deducted, shall be
refunded to the petitioners along with 6%
compound interest as had the amount been
deposited in a Bank by the petitioners on its
receipt in time, they would have been entitled
to bank's rate of interest on such deposit.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 66
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Writ A No. 8474 of 2021

Om Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Meerut Development Authority & Ors.
 ...Respondents