IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.21 of 2003 SATYA NARAIN PRASAD, son of Late Jagdeo Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Block No.9, P.O.-Nalanda Medical College, P.S.-Kankarbagh, District- Patna. ………..Petitioner Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, through its Administrator, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 2. Inspector General-cum- Director, Vigilance and Safety, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. Chief of Administration, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 4. Special Officer-cum- Enquiry Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 5. Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna Division, Patna. 6. Chief Accounts Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ………..Respondents ----------- 06. 05.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioner superannuated while serving as Clerk in the Corporation with effect from 31.1.1998. He has filed this writ application praying inter alia to quash the order bearing Memo No.484 dated 31.7.2001, whereunder punishment of recovery of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed on him after conclusion of departmental proceeding initiated againt the petitioner. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that proceeding initiated against the petitioner should have been concluded before his retirement and after retirement no punishment order can be passed as Corporation has not adopted the Bihar Pension Rules enabling them to impose punishment even after retirement of the service holder. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel - 2 - for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 26.6.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4159 of 2001 Baikunth Tiwary Versus Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and others, Annexure- 10. 4. Counsel for the Corporation has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition. He states that basic premise that Corporation has not adopted the Bihar Pension Rules enabling it to impose punishment even after retirement of the employees is misplaced as Corporation adopted the Bihar Pension Rules right from the very inception of the Corporation. Order dated 26.6.2001 Annexure-10 was challenged before this Court in L.P.A. No.686 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Division Bench. Againt the dismissal order the authorities of the Corporation preferred Special Leave to Appeal C.C. No.1416 of 2010 in which notice has been issued under order dated 19.2.2010. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Corporation, it is quite evident that till date orders of this Court dated 26.6.2001, Annexure-10 has not been set aside, whereunder it has been held that the Corporation does not have jurisdiction to impose punishment on its employees after his retirement and the said order has not yet been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of relying on the order dated 26.6.2001 Annexure-10 and punishment order dated 31.7.2001, Annexure-1 is set aside but the orders of this Court will be subject to the result of the final orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in - 3 - the appeal filed against order dated 26.06.2001, Annexure-10. Amit/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)