MANOHAR B. PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has taken an exception to the chargesheet dated 7th September 2011. The Petitioner was in the employment of the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University. While the Petitioner was head of the department, he applied for voluntary retirement. The Petitioner was relieved from the employment on 30th April 2010. By a notice dated 19th March 2011, the Registrar of the University called upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why an action should not be initiated against him for the purposes of withholding or reducing retirement benefits or pension. The Petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 7th September 2011. The Petitioner replied to the charge sheet. The first prayer in the Petition is for quashing and setting aside the charge sheet. The second prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release gratuity, pension and other retirement dues of the Petitioner with 12% compound interest thereon.

(2.) The 4th Respondent filed a reply contending that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short "Pension Rules") are applicable to the said University. The 4th Respondent relied upon Rule 27(2)(b) of the said Rules and submitted that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired employee.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made detailed submissions. He did not dispute that the provisions of the Pension Rules and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules 1979 (for short "Disciplinary and Appeal Rules") are applicable to the employees of the said University. He urged that a disciplinary inquiry can be initiated against an employee of the University only under the Discipline and Appeals Rules. He urged that unless there is a specific provision in the Disciplinary and Appeals Rules to that effect, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after superannuation of the Petitioner. He relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, 1999 3 SCC 666 and State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and others, 1997 8 SCC 60. He also relied upon decisions of this Court in the case of Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav v. Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corporation Ltd,2010 2 CLR 151. and Sudhakar Govind Rave v. Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited,2012 1 CLR 164.