Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1420 (ALL)

Rudra Pratap v. State of U. P.

2022-09-07

ALOK MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M.M. Pandey, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.03.2022, passed by the State Government thereby imposing punishment of withdrawing entire pension granted to him after his retirement and also ordering recovery of the same from the petitioner since the date of his superannuation. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry. During relevant period of time which is 2014, when advertisement was issued for recruitment to various posts in the department. It is submitted that various writ petitions were filed before this Court by the selected candidates as well as by other persons alleging irregularities in the selection process and consequently this Court in Writ Appeal No. 19975 of 2015, V.G. Rao vs. State of U.P. the Court was of the prima-facie opinion that there appears to have been corruption and irregularities in the said selection process which needs to be dealt strongly and directed the State Government to initiate inquiry against the persons responsible for the same and also to lodge first information report against responsible employees. 4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions of this Court the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted by the State Government to inquire into the entire process of selection. The SIT submitted its report on 11.12.2018, confirming the allegations and returned a finding that there has been large scale irregularities in conducting the said selections. It is on the basis of the said SIT report that the petitioner who was at the relevant point of time in-charge of the entire selection process, was served with charge sheet on 25.10.2019. In the meantime the petitioner had superannuated from service on 30.06.2018, and hence in compliance of Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, the Governor gave his consent for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining approval of the Governor, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25.10.2019. 5. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that after obtaining approval of the Governor, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25.10.2019. On receipt of the charge sheet where two charges pertaining to irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in the said recruitment process had been levelled, the petitioner denied the charges and submitted his reply on 16.12.2019. It is submitted that along with the charge sheet a copy of the SIT report was also given to the petitioner. It has been further stated that the SIT during its investigation recorded statements of the various persons before coming to conclusion that there has been large scale irregularities committed during the said recruitment process. 6. The petitioner has submitted that after submission of reply no oral inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner, nor any date time and place was fixed for the enquiry. It is stated that neither witness was examined nor any documents were produced during the inquiry to support the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. It is on these grounds the entire inquiry was conducted without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the inquiry officer solely relied upon the version and statements recorded by the SIT. 7. Secondly, ground raised by the petitioner that entire procedure of conducting the disciplinary proceedings have been done in utter violation of Regulation 351A of Civil Services Regulations, inasmuch as Regulation 351-A sub-clause (a)(ii) read with explanation (a) provides as under: “351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that: (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment: (i)............. (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. (iii)............. (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. (iii)............. Explanation: For the purpose of this article: (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. (b).............” 8. It is stated that charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 25.10.2019, while in the entire charge sheet as well as in the documents it has been indicated that misconduct took place some where during 2013-14, which is the period admittedly more than four years prior from the date of service of charge sheet and consequently is hit by the provisions of Article 351-A(a)(ii) of Civil Service Regulations, and consequently the proceedings on the face of it are illegal and arbitrary and cannot be initiated against the petitioner. 9. Per contra, Sri M.M. Pandey, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the present case grave irregularities and illegality have been committed giving rise of corruption by various persons including the petitioner. He submits that this Court took cognizance of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and other persons and by means of interim order dated 12.12.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015, directed the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings and lodge First Information Report. In compliance of the directions issued by this Court, SIT was constituted and preliminary inquiry was conducted. Entire proceedings against the petitioner have been done in compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.12.2017, and once there is judicial direction to the State Government to conduct inquiry, and therefore submits that the provisions of Civil Service Regulations would not restrain or create any embargo for the State Government from conducting inquiry against the petitioner. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not in consonance with law and hence disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be declared null and void, only on the ground that they are in violation of provisions of Article 351-A (a)(ii) of the Civil Service Regulations. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is evident from the record that petitioner was discharging his duties on the post of Director, Animal Husbandry during the period 2013-14, when recruitment for the post of Pasudhan Prasar Adhikari (Veterinary Live Stock Officer) were advertised. The petitioner, who was in-charge of entire selection process was charged with being negligent in conducting said examination. It is alleged that in the selection process large scale irregularities were committed giving rise to serious allegations of corruption. It is further alleged that the said recruitment was conducted in the most illegal and arbitrary manner and number of irregularities have taken place which have been attributed to the petitioner. It is clear from the allegations levelled in the charge sheet where these allegations have been detailed. 12. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet denying the charges. The petitioner has specifically stated in Para Nos. 31 and 32 of the writ petition, which have not been denied by the State Government, stating that the inquiry officer has fixed only one date which was 01.10.2020, when statement of petitioner was recorded and thereafter 15.10.2020 was fixed for oral hearing, but subsequently, because the petitioner did not request for any cross examination or fixing any date for hearing, the inquiry officer proceeded to consider the reply and passed necessary orders and concluded the inquiry report. 13. Subsequently, the petitioner was given show cause notice along with copy of inquiry report, to which he replied. Finally, by means of impugned order dated 14.03.2022, punishment has been awarded to the petitioner. 14. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondents were under duty to follow the provisions of Article 351-A(a)(ii) of Civil Service Regulations, or the disciplinary proceedings could have been conducted in violation of Article 351A of CSR, in pursuance to the order of this Court. 15. Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated and proceeded with against a Government Servant in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. In case the disciplinary proceedings are initiated after his superannuation, where the link of employer and employee has ceased to exist, then provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations have to be mandatorily followed. In case the disciplinary proceedings are initiated after his superannuation, where the link of employer and employee has ceased to exist, then provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations have to be mandatorily followed. The provisions of Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations provide the preconditions for initiation of inquiry against a retired Government servant. The approval from the Governor is necessary, and the charges sought to be inquired into should not be prior than 4 years from the date of institution of such proceedings. In case any of such conditions is infringed, then the inquiry will be illegal and liable to be set aside. The conditions stated in Article 351-A of CSR confers jurisdiction in the competent authority to proceed against a retired Government servant. Inquiry against a Government servant which is initiated prior to his superannuation, same can be continued subsequent to his superannuation only as per the provision stated in the said Regulations. 16. It is also noticed that before proceedings against the petitioner, mandatory approval from the Governor was also obtained by the respondents as per Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, which is clearly indicated in order dated 06.09.2019. The said Article further provides that departmental proceedings if not instituted while the employee was in service i.e. either he has been retired or after his reemployment, not more than four years from the institution of such proceedings. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents that in the instant case disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated against the petitioner after four years from the date when charge sheet was given to him. 17. In the present case, charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25.10.2019, which is subsequent to his superannuation and therefore from the said date it is undisputed that the disciplinary proceedings which are sought to be initiated are prior to four years and hence looking into the injunction provided under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations, such a disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated. 18. Considering the arguments of learned Standing Counsel that disciplinary proceedings have been proceeded with in terms of the judicial order. 18. Considering the arguments of learned Standing Counsel that disciplinary proceedings have been proceeded with in terms of the judicial order. We have perused the interim order of this Court dated 12.12.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 19975 of 2015, the concern shown by the High Court when faced with the facts of the present case is writ large from the said order. This Court was of the clear view that prima-facie the affairs relate to recruitment and smack of corruption and criminal act and must be inquired into and consequently directions were issued for imposing exemplary cost upon the guilty officers and further direction was given to the State Government to initiate inquiry in the said matter and lodge First Information Report. It is on the basis of said order, that inquiry proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. From the perusal of entire order it could not be shown that this Court was informed of the fact that either the petitioner or other persons against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated have retired, had this fact been brought to the knowledge of this Court, they would have adhered to the provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. 19. Needless to say that the proceedings have to be conducted only in accordance with law. It could not have been intention of this Court while passing order dated 12.12.2017 that the State Government would be at liberty to bypass any procedure imposing any punishment on delinquent employee who has retired, contrary to rules or settled legal proposition. 20. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, we do not agree with the submissions placed before this Court by learned Additional Advocate General that the respondents acted in pursuance to the judicial order without adhering to the provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. 21. It is further noticed that the respondents themselves were aware of the correct legal position as they obtained approval of Governor on 06.09.2019, which was as per provisions of Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. From the perusal of order dated 16.07.2019, it is evident that the respondents themselves thought it appropriate and rightly obtained approval of the Governor in accordance with the Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations and consequently argument of learned Additional Advocate General does not hold water in this regard and consequently rejected. 22. From the perusal of order dated 16.07.2019, it is evident that the respondents themselves thought it appropriate and rightly obtained approval of the Governor in accordance with the Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations and consequently argument of learned Additional Advocate General does not hold water in this regard and consequently rejected. 22. It is further noticed that provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations are jurisdictional in nature and hence they are mandatory. The State Government can be empowered to initiate proceedings against a Government servant who has superannuated only if they comply with the mandatory provisions contained in the said Regulations. Even in a case if either sanction of Governor is not taken or the matter is inquired into with respect to an event which took place more than four years back, the State does not have any power to institute disciplinary proceedings in such matter, as inquiry into such classes of cases has been placed beyond the scope of inquiry. The provisions of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 apply even to the persons who have retired only when conditions laid down under Article 351-A of CSR are fulfilled as the link of employer and employee does not exist. 23. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that inquiry in the present case has been proceeded against petitioner in gross violation of Article 351-A(a)(ii) and consequently the entire disciplinary proceedings are hit by the mandatory provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. Hence, the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, passed by the State Government, is set aside. 24. The writ petition is allowed. Consequences to follow.