Ajit Kumar Nigam (Retired) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging impugned communication dated 02/06/2021 made to petitioner. By said communication charge-sheet alongwith documents is served upon petitioner. Charge-sheet was given to petitioner vide order dated 28/05/2021

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner superannuated from post of Assistant General Manager from Cooperative Dairy Federation on 31/05/2021. After superannuation show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 02/06/2021 proposing to initiate departmental enquiry, which is filed as Annexure P-4. It is submitted that after said notice, communication was made to petitioner by letter dated 02/06/2021. It is submitted that respondents initiated departmental enquiry against petitioner after retirement. Relationship between employer and employee has come to an end and there is no specific provision in Cooperative Societies Act which lays down that departmental enquiry can be continued after retirement or petitioner is deem to have continued in service if any notice or charge-sheet has been served upon him when he was in service. It is submitted that respondents permitted petitioner to retire and thereafter notices were issued to him for departmental enquiry. Action taken by respondents is illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, same be quashed and further direction be issued to respondents to pay all retiral dues to petitioner. In support of his contention counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance upon judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of B.J. Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat & Others, 1978 STPL 1392 SC, C. L. Verma Vs. State of M.P. & Another, 1989 STPL 5566 SC and R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State for India In Council, 1936 STPL 1094 PC and orders passed by High Court in WP.No.21278/2015 (Sevakram Shivedi Vs. M.P. Khadi Tatha Gram Udyog & Another) decided on 22/08/2016, W.P.No.17844/2020 (Bhuvansingh Waskel Vs. State of M.P. & Others) decided on 10/02/2023, W.P.No.19195/2021 (Arun Kumar Lilhori Vs. State of M.P. & Another) decided on 22/11/2023 and W.P.No.41888/2024 (Rajeev Saxena Vs. State of M.P. & Others) decided on 19/11/2025.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that notices were issued to petitioner prior to his retirement. Said notices are dated 20/10/2020 and 17/12/2020. It is submitted that after giving notice to petitioner, statement of charges were drawn up and same was served upon petitioner on 28/05/2021. Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no specific provision for continuation of departmental enquiry after retirement. Neither there is any provision that petitioner is deemed to have continued in service if charge-sheet or show cause notice issued to him after his retirement. Counsel for respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Rabindranath Choubey, (2020) 18 SCC 71, wherein Apex Court held that penalty / punishment after retirement and superannuation may be imposed depending upon rules.

Heard counsel for the parties.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has admitted that there is no specific provision for deemed fiction created by rules that retired employee is deemed to have continue in service during departmental proceedings while he was in service. Petitioner superannuated on 31/05/2021 and show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 02/06/2021 proposing to initiate departmental enquiry. Petitioner was not in service and there is no deemed fiction for continuation in service during pendency of departmental enquiry.

Apex Court has made fine distinction in case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & others Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tandon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 in respect of demitting the Office by an employee. Office can be demitted by resignation or by superannuation. Both of these two concepts are different. Resignation brings about the complete cession of master and master-servant relationship ends, but retirement does not do so. In case of retirement, master and servant relationship continues for grant of retiral benefits, therefore, in cases of loss caused by an act of an officer, who demits office after retirement, departmental enquiry for recovery of said loss caused by him may be continued even after retirement.

In this case there is no specific rules, therefore, departmental enquiry after retirement can only be continued in respect of recovery of losses caused by act of delinquent employee and not for other purposes. Show cause notice has been issued to petitioner on 02/06/2021. As per notice dated 20/11/2020 petitioner did not lifted the scrap of 25 ton plastic, which got completely damaged. Federation suffered loss of Rs.75,000/- on this account. Further, as per notice dated 17/12/2020 petitioner caused loss of Rs.20.51 lakhs and proposal was made to proceed against him as per M.P. State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited Employees Recruitment, Classification and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1985. Charge-sheet was also issued to petitioner on 28/05/2021.

Considering the same, it is found that by issuing show cause notice, respondents want to continue departmental enquiry by which financial loss has been caused to Federation. Financial loss can be recovered even after superannuation of an employee as partial relationship of payment of pension exists between employer and employee as per judgment passed by Apex Court in case of U.P. State Supar Corporation Ltd. & Others (supra). In view of same, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition.

Writ Petition is dismissed.