HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 137 of 2011 State of Uttar Pradesh and others. ……..Appellants Versus Kallu Singh …….Respondent Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for the appellants. Mr.Siddhartha Sah, holding brief of Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: September 6, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) CLMA No. 6790/2011(Delay Condonation Application) Being satisfied with the reasons, furnished for delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal. 3. The order passed on 9th March, 2007, awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual increments, with cumulative effect, and directing recovery of loss caused to the department to the tune of ` 4,66,928/-, was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been allowed and the said punishment order has been quashed, for the reasons indicated therein. In addition to 2 those reasons, there appears to be no dispute that the subject disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner on 8th August, 1991; the respondent-writ petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 1998; and the order of punishment, closing the disciplinary proceedings, was passed on 9th March, 2007 i.e. after the respondent-writ petitioner had retired. There is no dispute that the law permits a disciplinary proceeding, initiated during the period of service of an employee, to be continued even after his superannuation, but for that matter steps are required to be taken. In the instant case, such steps were not taken. If such steps had been taken, the punishments awarded, could not be awarded, instead interference with the petitioner’s pension could be made. Therefore, the order dated 9th March, 2007 is per-se illegal, on that ground too, we are of the view that the ultimate conclusion of the judgment and order under appeal is not interferable. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.09.2011 NCM: