HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 8947 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by respondent no.4, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby a recovery of Rs.113.34 lakhs has been directed against the petitioner on account of financial loss caused to the Nigam. 3. The legal argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2011 and the order impugned has been passed subsequent to retirement of the petitioner on 21.01.2023 and at the time of retirement of the petitioner, there was no provision in the rules for continuance of any disciplinary proceedings subsequent to retirement of the employee concerned and consequently the order impugned which has been passed subsequent to his retirement is per se bad in the eyes of law. 4. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Pradeep Agarwal vs. U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited - 2022:AHC-LKO:14334, wherein this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court and it has been held that when at the time of retirement of the employee concerned there was no provision in the Working Manual of the Nigam or any other rules permitting continuance Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avinash Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shishir Jain Hoshiyar Singh Tarkar @ H.S. Tarkar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) of an inquiry after his retirement or for passing of an order of recovery for alleged financial loss, therefore, the order of punishment would be beyond jurisdiction. 5. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the Nigam, does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Pradeep Agarwal (supra). 6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.01.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. Consequences to follow. 7. However, the Nigam would be at liberty to file a suit for recovery, if otherwise maintainable and permissible in the eyes of law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and all all these issues would be open for consideration in the suit filed by the Nigam, if any, inasmuch as this Court has interfered only on the point of jurisdiction of the Nigam to pass an order of recovery, as impugned herein. September 4, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 8947 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench