DEV PRAKASH TEWARI versus U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD, LUCKNOW & ORS

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 30-06-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 8 S.C.R. 11 
DEV PRAKASH TEWARI 
v. 
U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD, 
LUCKNOW & ORS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5848-5849 of 2014) 
JUNE 30, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Employees Service 
Regulations, 1975: Disciplinary proceedings - Continuance 
C 
of, after superannuation - Held: There is no provision in the 
Service Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of 
disciplinary proceeding after retirement nor there is any 
provision stating that in case misconduct is established a 
deduction could be made from retiral benefits - In the instant 
D 
case, the appellant retired from service - Therefore, after his 
retirement there was no authority vested with respondent for 
continuing disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of 
imposing any reduction in the retrial benefits payable to the 
appellant- In the absence of such an authority it must be held 
E 
that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to 
get full retiral benefits -
Service law -
Disciplinary 
proceedings. 
The appellant was working as Assistant Engineer 
with Respondent No. 2. A disciplinary proceeding was 
initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative 
Employees Service regulations, 1975 and after enquiry, 
F 
he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved, the appellant 
filed a writ petition. The High Court quashed the 
disciplinary proceeding on the ground that inquiry was 
G 
vitiated as no opportunity was given to the appellant to 
cross-examine the witness and, therefore, there was 
violation of principle of natural justice. The High Court 
directed for reinstatement and payment of back wages 
11 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A and granted liberty to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry 
in accordance with law. Fresh disciplinary proceeding 
was conducted and while it was pending, the appellant 
reached the age of superannuation and retired from 
service. 
B 
c 
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the 
continuance of disciplinary proceedings after his 
retirement. The High Court held that there was no ground 
to interf(ere with the disciplinary proceeding and directed 
to complete it within 4 months. The instant appeal was 
filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court while quashing the earlier 
o disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of 
principll:ls of natural justice in its order dated 10.1.2006 
granted liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance 
with the Regulations. The appellant w.as reinstated in 
service on 26.4.2006 and fresh disciplinary proceeding 
E 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 
F 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. [Para 
6] [15-D-G] 
2. Once the appellant had retired from service on 
G 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 
H lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral 
DEV PRAKASH TEWARI v. U.P. COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONAL 
13 
SER. BOARD, LUCKNOW 
benefits. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, i.t is the 
A 
appellant would have to get the balance of the 
emoluments payable to him. The respondents are 
directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable 
to the appellant and also to pay all the retiral benefits in 
accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had 
B 
been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. 
[Paras9 to 11] [17-D-G] 
U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Ors. vs. L. P. Rai 
(2007) 7 sec 81 - held inapplicable. 
Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. 
(1999) 3 SCC 666: 1999 (2) SCR 354- referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
(2001) 1 sec 81 
1999 (2) SCR 354 
hel~ inapplicable 
Para 3 
referred to 
Para 4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
5848-5849 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2009 in WP -
No. 1919/2009 dated 29

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.