HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 34956 of 2015 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent- Committee of Management and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the termination of the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.2014 by respondent no.4. In fact the petitioner was appointed as Head Clerk on 27.04.1981 in the fourth- respondent Institution and he continued almost more than 30 years in the Institution without any remarks. But surprisingly, on 26.11.2013 the fourth- respondent has suspended the petitioner and the same were sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Mathura, and his suspension was disapproved by the competent authority vide order dated 24.01.2014. Hence, the petitioner has continued in service. Subsequently the fourth-respondent has issued charge-sheet on 27.02.2014, the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.03.2014 after completing the inquiry along with inquiry report, the fourth-respondent has issued second show cause notice on 18.09.2014, to the same, the petitioner has made his reply on 24.09.2014. Finally the Committee of Management has passed the final orders terminating the services of the petitioner on 06.11.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Based on the above facts learned Senior Counsel Shri V.K. Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions mainly on the ground that while pending the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has retired from service on 31.03.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Shyam Dwivedi, Chandra Bhushan Yadav, Sudhir Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. A.Hulker .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Once the petitioner has retired from service there is no master- servant relationship between the fourth-respondent and the petitioner and there is no provision to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee. Hence, the order passed by the fourth-respondent on 06.11.2014 is contrary to the rules and without having any power supported by the statute. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that an identical issue fell for consideration before this Court in Ravindra Singh Rathore Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and others reported in 2004 (1) AWC 310. This Court held that the Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations are not applicable to the employees, teachers and Principal in an aided education institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant portion reads as follows:- "17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Regulation 341A of the Civil Service Regulations which provide for continuance of an enquiry against a Government servant even after his retirement, is not applicable in the case of employee, teacher and Principal in an aided educational institution in the State of U.P. Thus, the aforesaid provision cannot be pressed into service for justifying the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of Sri Ravindra Singh Rathore." 5. Based on the above observations of this Court learned Senior Counsel has made his submissions without going into the merits and only on the grounds of legal issue that after retirement an employee in an aided institution, the Regulation 351-A is not applicable. In fact in the Uttar Pradesh Regulations particularly after retirement which is dealt by only Regulation 351-A other than that there is no legal provision to deal with disciplinary proceedings after retirement and this Court categorically held that the said Regulation 351-A is not applicable to the educational institutions particularly aided institutions in Uttar pradesh. The orders passed by the respondents are not supported by any provision of law. 6. In reply to the same, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth- respondent has submitted that in fact from the day of suspension there are multiple litigations filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, the fourth- respondent could not able to complete the disciplinary proceedings before his retirement, as the charge-sheet was issued much prior to his retirement, the fourth-respondent being a minority education institution which is entitled WRIA No. 34956 of 2015 2 to pass appropriate orders based on the findings of the inquiry report. 7. But with regard to legal contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth-respondent and respondent nos.1 to 3 are not able to place any provision. In the said circumstances, while taking the observations made by this Court in the above referred judgment, the impugned order dated 06.11.2014 is contrary to law and are without having any statutory support. According, the impugned order dated is 06.11.2014 set aside and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be a direction to release all dues including relevant benefits to the petitioner. September 25, 2025 AdityaG WRIA No. 34956 of 2015 3 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad