IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 597 of 2011 Date of Decision : March 29, 2011 Superintendent Engineer, Administration, DHBVNL, Hisar ….Appellant Versus Karam Singh and another …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by the writ petitioner- respondent by holding that there was no power conferred on the appellant to continue the disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his retirement. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the regulations applicable to the writ petitioner- respondent known as Haryana State Electricity Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990 and held that the regulations are silent with regard to initiation of disciplinary L.P.A. No. 597 of 2011 -2- proceedings or continuation thereof after the retirement of an employee by the Board. 2. It has been categorically found that there is no rule which permits the appellant to continue the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement and that the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued after the retirement unless the rule permits such a course to be taken. Neither before the learned Single Judge nor before us, any such rule or regulation has been cited which may clothe the appellant with the power to continue with the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of an employee. It is for this reason that the learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 666 laying down that if there is no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of an employee or any provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of an employee, then no deduction could be made from the retiral benefits. 3. We have heard learned counsel at some length Mr. Praveen Gupta, learned counsel has not been able to cite any rule or regulation showing that the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for brevity 'the Rules') have been adopted by the appellant-Corporation. It is true that there is a provision in Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules which L.P.A. No. 597 of 2011 -3- permits continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement for the purposes of imposition of cut in pension. However, the aforesaid rule will not be applicable ipso facto to the employees of the appellant-Corporation in the absence of specific adoption of the same. No such resolution adopting the principles of the Civil Services Rules has been brought to our notice. A perusal of the memo of appeal also does not disclose any such power or adoption of the said Rules. There is, thus, no ground made out for admission of the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 29, 2011 JUDGE satish