Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 213 (ALL)

JANARDAN CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-01-31

PANKAJ MITHAL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The short question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether an order of punishment affecting the post retiral benefits i.e. curtailment of pension can be passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner despite his retirement or after his retirement. 2. The petitioner was in service of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. He was superannuated vide order dated 27.12.2002 on completion of 60 years of age w.e.f. 31.12.2002. After the petitioner had retired, as per the resolution of the Board of Management dated 18.1.2003 the pension admissible to the petitioner has been reduced by 1/3rd vide the impugned order dated 21.2.2003 . 3. In this writ petition necessary counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties have been exchanged and the learned counsel for the respective parties agree for the final disposal of the writ petition on their basis. Accordingly, we have heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash Padia for the University and Sri Neeraj Tripathi for the Chancellor as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had retired on 31.12.2002 and, therefore, in the absence of any statutory provision the continuance of the disciplinary inquiry after his retirement and imposing punishment in pursuance thereof is illegal. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is uninformed by reasons as it does not record any reason whatsoever for disagreeing with the contentions of the petitioner raised in reply to the show cause notice. The Inquiry Officer has not conducted the inquiry properly and the petitioner was not given any proper hearing or opportunity to defend himself. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2003. In fact, the petitioner had also challenged his above retirement and had claimed that he was entitled to continue in service till the end of the session i.e. till 30.6.2003 but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the above claim and has confined his arguments with regard to the illegality of the impugned order of punishment dated 21.2.2003 passed on the basis of the resolution of the Board of Management dated 18.1.2003. In view of the above, the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2002 remains undisputed and stand confirmed. 6. In view of the above, the retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.12.2002 remains undisputed and stand confirmed. 6. The record further demonstrates that a disciplinary inquiry was instituted against the petitioner vide order dated 15.12.2000 and Dr. V.S. Verma, head of the department of Agronomy was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. On the basis of the inquiry report a show cause notice dated 12.7.2002 was served upon the petitioner and after considering the petitioner’s reply thereof the Board of Management by a resolution passed in the meeting held on 18.1.2003 decided to curtail the pension of the petitioner by 1/3rd of the amount by way of punishment. Accordingly an order to the above effect was issued on 21.2.2003. Thus, from the above facts it transpires that the impugned order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner after his retirement curtailing his post retiral benefits. 7. The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Prodyogic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1958, which governs the University vide Section 28 empowers for the framing of the statutes regarding the matters enumerated therein. Statute 28(r) provides for making statutes with regard to the conditions of service of the teachers and salaried officers of the University. In exercise of the above power the statutes of the University have been framed and Chapter XXI of the statutes deals with the qualifications, emoluments and other terms and conditions for the service of the employees of the University other than the Vice Chancellor. The provisions contained in the above Chapter of the statutes authorizes the appointing authority to remove or to impose any kind of punishment upon the employees of the University. Therefore, the appointing authority has the power to curtail the pensionary benefits of its employees by way of punishment. 8. Sri Padia, has placed reliance upon the minutes of the 7th meeting of the Board of Management dated 28.6.1977 (Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit) which provides that till the University finalize its terms and conditions of service, the government rules and regulations should be observed as a temporary measure. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order in view of the Regulation 351(A) of the Civil Services Regulations which provides that irrespective of the retirement disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee provided the initiation is within four years of the incident. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order in view of the Regulation 351(A) of the Civil Services Regulations which provides that irrespective of the retirement disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee provided the initiation is within four years of the incident. The above submission is devoid of any merit inasmuch as the resolution of the Board of Management aforesaid is of no consequence as the University has already framed statutes covering the field of the terms and conditions of the services of the employees of the University. Therefore, the Civil Services Regulations have no application in respect of the employees of the University. 9. The statutes are completely silent with regard to the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against an employee after his retirement. There is no provision either under the Act or the statutes analogous to Regulation 351(A) of the Civil Services Regulation. In the absence of any express provision the departmental inquiry could not have continued after the petitioner had retired. The above view stand fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20. The same view has also been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1099 . Therefore, we are of the opinion that no punishment much less punishment reducing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner could have been imposed upon him after he had retired. 10. Sri Padia in reply has placed heavy reliance upon the fact that in the present case the disciplinary inquiry was instituted against the petitioner much before his retirement and even an inquiry report had been submitted earlier to the retirement. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was well within its jurisdiction to impose the impugned punishment, even though the petitioner had retired. The submission is bereft of merit in the absence of any specific rule or statute providing for the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner even after his retirement. No other provision in this regard has been brought to our notice. 11. The submission is bereft of merit in the absence of any specific rule or statute providing for the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner even after his retirement. No other provision in this regard has been brought to our notice. 11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings, which were pending against petitioner and have not been completed, could not have been proceeded with after his retirement on 31.12.2002. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment/resolution dated 18.1.2003/21.2.2003 (Annexure 19 to the writ petition) is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to finalize the pension of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the production of the certified copy of this judgment and order and to accord all post retiral benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law including arrears. 12. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. ———