[1999 (82 )FLR143 ], 1999 INSC 149 , JT1999 (3 )SC 53 , 1999 LabIC2080 , (1999 )I LLJ1236 SC , 1999 (2 )LLN993 (SC ), 1999 (2 )SCALE545 , (1999 )3 SCC666 , (1999 ) SCC(LS)804 , [1999 ]2 SCR354 , 1999 (2 )SCT651 (SC ), 1999 (3 )SLJ294 (SC ), 1999 (2 )SLR355 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/0260/1999M. Jagannadha Rao#S.S.M. Quadri#2261SC2260Judgment/OrderAIR#CLT#FLR#INSC#JT#LabIC#LLJ#LLN#MANU#SCALE#SCC#SCC(LS)#SCR#SCT#SLJ#SLRSUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Miscellaneous,Enquiry,Labour and Industrial Law -->

MANU/SC/0260/1999

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2101/1999

Decided On: 31.03.1999

Appellants: Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Respondent: Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M. Jagannadha Rao and S.S.M. Quadri

JUDGMENT

1. Special leave granted.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant who was an employee of the respondent Corporation. The appellant joined as a Junior Clerk in 1962 and by the year 1986 he was working as Joint General Manager. He was issued a charge sheet on 22.7.92 in respect of various items of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the same day under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 and the appellant was suspended with immediate effect. For various reasons, which it is not necessary to mention here, the disciplinary enquiry was not concluded before the date of the appellant's superannuation, which took place on 30th June, 1995.

3. The appellant was relieved on 1st July, 1975 by the Corporation "without prejudice to the claims of the Corporation." Thereafter the question arose in regard to the continuance of the disciplinary enquiry for the purpose of reduction of retiral benefits payable to the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa contending that once the appellant had retired on 30.6.95, the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued even for the purpose of making reduction of the retiral benefits inasmuch as there were no statutory regulations made by the Corporation for such reduction of retiral benefits. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated 30.6.98. Thereafter the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent Corporation invited our attention to the Regulation-17 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1959. It reads thus ;

The sum standing to the credit of a subscriber shall become payable on the termination of his/her service or on his/her death, provided that there may if the Board so directs the Administrators, be deducted there from and paid to the Corporation-

(a) any amount due under a liability incurred by the subscriber to the Corporation up to the total amount contributed by the Corporation to his/her account, including the interest credited in respect thereof:

5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3) (c) of the Regulation-44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It reads thus ;

When the employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and make a