BHOJRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Siddhartha Srivastava and Sri Shams Tabrez Ali learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1.

(2.) The present petition is primarily filed against an office order dated 28.9.2018 issued by the Managing Director, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow whereby the decision of the Board of Directors, U.P Jal Nigam for further enquiry in the matter of diversion of Rs. 38.83 crores in the Maintenance Division, Jal Nigam, Agra during the financial year 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 had been implemented. The office memorandum dated 13.12.2018 whereby a Committee has been constituted to make an enquiry against the petitioner and other officers who were posted in the Maintenance Division, Agra at the relevant point of time, is also subject matter of challenge. The chargesheet dated 2.2.2019 issued by the enquiry Committee is also under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.6.2017. Fresh enquiry cannot be initiated against the retired employee without following procedure prescribed under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. The Board of Director, U.P. Jal Nigam is not the competent authority to direct for fresh enquiry against a retired employee.