IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 13239 of 2009 Date of Decision: 26.8.2010. Satpal --Petitioner Versus U.H.B.V.N.L. & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner retired from the service of the respondents on 31.10.2004 as Junior Engineer. After his retirement an amount of Rs. 30,788/- has been deducted vide order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure P-1) from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. From the perusal of Annexure P-1, it appears that this amount has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner on account of shortage of material & T/V oil as also amounting to Rs. 27,0,44/- and Rs. 2525.25. Whereas another amount of Rs. 2970/- has been recovered on account of alleged excess pay drawn by the petitioner. Thus, the total amount recovered from the petitioner is Rs. 30,788/-. It is admitted position that no inquiry or disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during the period he remained in service. This recovery is said to be made almost after 2 years of the retirement of the petitioner. CWP. No. 13239 of 2009 -2- It is settled law that no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the employee after his retirement, unless rules so permit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as 1999 (3) SCC 666 titled as Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C and others has held as under:- “ 7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the above said 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 30.6.1995, 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.” No rule or regulation has been relied upon in the reply or brought to the notice of the court which permits the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned recovery is, thus, illegal and liable to be quashed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 26.8.2010. lucky