IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20463 of 1999 BETWEEN: V. Subba Rao, S/o Ambalaiah, R/o.H.No.10-140/1, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-47. ... PETITIONER AND The A.P.Small Scale Industries Development Corporation, Rep. by it's Vice Chairman & Managing Director, No.A-3 Industrial Estate, Beside Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.SIDC/Estt/04 dated 6-9-1999 issued by the respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violating Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.N.SRINIVASAN The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 06.09.1999 issued by the respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. I have perused the record. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Ceramic expert in the respondent corporation in the year 1976. He was promoted as Deputy Manager and in that capacity he took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme under order dated 30.11.1996 passed by the respondent corporation. However, more than 2 ½ years after the retirement of the petitioner, the Managing Director of the respondent corporation issued Charge Memo dated 07.08.1999 wherein the following charge was framed: “Shri V. Subba Rao, Ex.GM. Furniture Mill, Sanathnagar, while performing his duties. It is reported that as GM. Furniture Mill, Shri V. Subba Rao has procured sub-standard spot lights fittings worth of Rs.29,975/- and supplied to APSEB for use at RTPP. Kalamala. The entire stock of spot light fittings were rejected by APSEB authorities and the material is still lying in the stocks of Furniture Mill.” 4. On the basis of the above mentioned charge, the petitioner was called upon to explain why the sum of Rs.29,975/- should not be recovered from him. 5. In pursuance of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.08.1999 wherein he requested the respondent to drop further action. By order dated 06.09.1999, the respondent rejected the explanation of the petitioner and ordered for recovery of Rs.14,987.50 ps. representing 50% of the amount of alleged loss caused to the corporation by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner questioned this proceedings mainly on two grounds viz. that the respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after his retirement and that the impugned order was passed without holding any enquiry. 7. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has not specifically met both these pleas. 8. As regards the first plea, unless the service regulations or rules empower to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee or continuing the disciplinary proceedings already initiated before retirement of the employee, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated or continued, as the case may be after such retirement, as the employer – employee relationship comes to end with the retirement of the employee. The respondent has not come out with the specific plea that the service regulations governing the petitioner reserved any such power in the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the petitioner’s retirement. In the absence of such a plea, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is without jurisdiction. I find equal force in the second plea viz. that even if the respondent is not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, it is incumbent upon the respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if it is competent to do so after the petitioner’s retirement. The petitioner cannot be visited with adverse consequences without holding an enquiry unless it is shown that the penalty of recovery of money can be imposed under the service regulations without holding an enquiry. The respondent has not come out with any specific plea in this regard. Therefore, on both the counts the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J December 23, 2008 DSK