C RAMALINGA REDDY Vs. NON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH LIMITED A STATE GOVERNMENT CO REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after retirement is bad.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :- The Petitioner was working as Manager (Finance and Accounts) as on 30th November 1991 in the respondent-organisation. According to the service conditions applicable to the petitioner, he had to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/11/1991. On the said date, the following order was passed by the respondent :- "Sri C. Ramalinga Reddy, Manager (Finance & Accounts) NEDCAP Ltd. is due to retire from services on superannuation with effect from 30/11/1991 A. N. Therefore, it is ordered that Sri C. Ramalinga Reddy is hereby retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30th November, 1991 A. N. Subject to outcome of the enquiry instituted against him. The Corporation reserves power to take such action as deemed fit based on the enquiry report to be furnished by the Enquiry Officer. Further, Sri C. Ramalinga Reddy is directed to hand over the charge to Sri S. M. Basha, Assistant Manager (Fin & Accts.) NEDCAP." Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was retired from service by the respondent and was directed to hand over charge of the post held by him to Sri S. M. Basha, Assistant Manager (Finance and Accounts) at 4.50 P.M. on 30.11.1991. Since the terminal benefits have not been paid to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the respondent having permitted him to retire cannot take any disciplinary proceedings against him and on that pretext, cannot withhold the terminal benefits due to him. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner ceases to be an employee of the respondent-Organisation and that there is no relationship of master and servant between the two and, therefore, the respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever to conduct any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.