AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 336 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the entire disciplinary inquiry as well as the inquiry report dated 19.12.2025 in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him by respondent-Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021 from the post of Accountant of respondent nos.2 and 3, the respondents could not initiate departmental proceedings against him after the lapse of one year and eleven months from the date of his retirement on superannuation.
This Court, vide order dated 01.06.2026, directed learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 to get instructions in the matter as to how the inquiry was initiated against a retired employee of the Rajkiya Nirman Nigam after one year and eleven months of his retirement.
Today, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, on instructions, submits that Rule 709(च) of the Working Manual of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam provides that even after retirement, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated under the Manual before the expiry of four years from the date of the incident in respect of which the inquiry is to be conducted.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the writ petition cannot survive in view of the aforesaid provision.
I have perused para 709(च) of the Working Manual of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam as well as the record. This Court is of the opinion that the alleged irregularity was committed by the petitioner on 31.03.2021 and the inquiry was initiated against him on 23.05.2023, which was well within the period of four years prescribed under para 709(च) of the Working Manual of Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
However, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed to expedite the inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
