Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1160 (ALL)

DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT v. BARATI LAL

2017-05-02

ARUN TANDON, REKHA DIKSHIT

body2017
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.10.2015, passed in Writ Petition No. 60006 of 2014, connected with Writ Petition No. 679 of 2004. 3. The facts relevant for deciding the writ petition are as under : Petitioner Barati Lal, was working on the post of Clerk in Social Welfare Department, State of Uttar Pradesh, vide order dated 11.6.1992 he prayed under suspension pending enquiry by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare. 4. With reference to the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 9.10.1995, dismissing the petitioner from service. Not being satisfied with the order, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal. Claim petition was dismissed resulting in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1999, (S/B) being filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court by the writ petitioner. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2009, the order of punishment dated 9.10.1995 was set aside with a direction to re-initiate the departmental enquiry from the stage of submission of the charge-sheet. 5. The Division Bench further provided that the consequential benefits would depend upon de novo enquiry as directed by the Court. 6. In compliance, the petitioner was reinstated in service by the order dated 4.02.2010, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.2013. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 7.4.2013, held that the petitioner was responsible for the loss caused to the State Government to the tune of Rs. 65,582/- which was directed to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. 7. Barati Lal file two writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 679 of 2014, for quashing of the order dated 17.4.2013 and for release of his pensionary benefit and Writ Petition No 60006 of 2014 requiring the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Kalyan Bhawan, Lucknow to take decision on his representation dated 30.9.2014 and pay his post retrial benefit. 8. The learned Single Judge under the common judgment dated 7.10.2015 has been pleased to set aside the order dated 17.4.2013 and has issued a direction that all retrial benefits be released in favour of the petitioner Barati Lal with interest @ 12%. It is, against this order of the learned Single Judge that intra Court appeal has been filed. 9. The learned Single Judge under the common judgment dated 7.10.2015 has been pleased to set aside the order dated 17.4.2013 and has issued a direction that all retrial benefits be released in favour of the petitioner Barati Lal with interest @ 12%. It is, against this order of the learned Single Judge that intra Court appeal has been filed. 9. One of the basic ground for challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge as contended before us on behalf of the State is that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that for imposition of penalty of recovery of the loss caused to the State Government against an employee concerned, as show cause notice and consideration of the reply thereto would suffice. 10. According to the learned Standing Counsel, recovery of the loss caused is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 3 sub-Rule IV of Uttar Pradesh Government Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rule 1999 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rule of 1999’). 11. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge has gone wrong in holding that since full fledged enquriy has not taken place the order dated 17.4.2013. Imposition of minor penalty of recovery of the loss cost to the State Government to the tune of Rs. 65,582/- could not be sustained. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly considered that in view of the nature of the penalty being minor, no full fledged departmental enquiry was required and that service of notice and consideration of reply thereto would suffice. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the records. 14. It is not in dispute that recovery of the loss caused to the State Government is minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 3 sub-Rule IV of 1999 Rule. 15. The procedure prescribed for imposition of such minor penalty under Rule 10 of the same rules provide for issuance of show cause notice and order being made after consideration of the explanation, (if any, received) (Reference Rule 10 (2)). 16. It is, therefore, clear that in the facts of the case, if the State Government had decided to impose of minor penalty within the meaning of 1999 Rule, the only requirement under Rule was issuance of a show cause notice and consideration of the reply thereto. 17. 16. It is, therefore, clear that in the facts of the case, if the State Government had decided to impose of minor penalty within the meaning of 1999 Rule, the only requirement under Rule was issuance of a show cause notice and consideration of the reply thereto. 17. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter while recording a finding that the order impugned cannot be sustained for want of full fledged eqnuiry. 18. It is not the case of employee concerned that notice had not been served or that the order of imposition penalty had been made without consideration of his reply. 19. We are conscious of the fact that the incumbent had actually retired on 31.1.2013 while the order directing the recovery from his pensionary benefits had been made on 17.4.2013. In view of Rule 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. No order for deduction from the pension of a retired Government Servant can be made except with the prior approval of the Governor of the State. 20. In the facts of the case, we find that no such prior sanction from the Governor had been obtained. 21. We, therefore, in the facts of the case, dispose of the present Special Appeal by providing as under:- (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall make an application in the matter of grant of sanction by the Governor for the proposed punishment of recovery of the loss caused to the State Government from the pensionary benefits due to Barati Lal within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. The Governor is requested to take appropriate decision thereon preferably within 8 weeks of receipt of such letter by means of the reasoned order. (b) All other monetary benefits except the sum of Rs. 65,582/- must be released in favour of the retired employee Barati Lal-appellant within two months from today. (c) Payment of withheld amount of Rs. 65,582/-shall abide by the orders of the Governor. 22. A statement in respect of the funds so provided to the appellant as aforesaid shall also be disclosed by the appellant Barati Lal, if he is not satisfied, he shall at liberty to challenge the same before appropriate Forum. 23. The present Special Appeal is disposed of.