State Of U.P. & Ors vs R.C. Misra

3. The respondent was working as Block Development Officer when he was placed under suspension by the order dated 20.10.1997 and a charge sheet containing 12 charges was served upon him on 24.10.1997. The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1997 and retired from service. The enquiry officer submitted a report on 16.11.1999 that all the 12 charges levelled against the respondent were found to have been established. Thereafter, an order was passed by the State Government on 25.1.2001 directing recovery of Rs.9,69,141.60 from the pension/gratuity of the respondent. The respondent filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, challenging the aforesaid order passed by the State Government. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by the order dated 10.4.2002 and set aside the order passed by the State Government directing recovery of Rs.9,69,141.60 from the respondent. It was, however, left open to the State Government to proceed against the respondent under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. The appellant State of U.P. filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal but the same was dismissed on 16.3.2004.

5. There is no dispute regarding the factual position that the respondent was placed under suspension on 20.10.1997 and a charge sheet containing 12 charges was served upon him on 24.10.1997 and shortly thereafter he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1997. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that all the charges were found to have been established against the respondent. The Tribunal has held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent prior to his retirement by issuing a charge sheet but the same could not have continued after his retirement unless specific order for its continuance had been taken from the competent authority i.e. the Governor, as provided in Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. The High Court has accepted the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal and has observed as under :-

(b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Provided that in cases where the authority sanctioning pension is other than the appointing authority, no order regarding reduction in the amount of pension shall be made without the approval of the appointing authority.

(i) of clause (a) of the proviso is only on institution of the proceedings and not the continuance thereof.

11. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed with costs. The judgment and order dated 10.4.2002 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision of the claim petition filed by the respondent on merits and in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall make all possible endeavour to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this judgment, which shall be done by the parties at the earliest.