2007(2) Supreme 965
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
G.P. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors.—Appellants
versus
R.C. Misra—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 2007
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16753 of 2004)
Decided on 22-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sunil Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, G.V. Rao, Advocates.
Held : A combined reading of the proviso and the explanation would show that there is no fetter or limitation of any kind for instituting departmental proceedings against an officer if he has not attained the age of superannuation and has not retired from service. If an officer is either placed under suspension or charges are issued to him prior to his attaining the age of superannuation, the departmental proceedings so instituted can validly continue even after he has attained the age of superannuation and has retired and the limitations imposed by sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of proviso to Regulation 351A will not apply. It is only where an officer is not placed under suspension or charges are not issued to him while he is in service and departmental proceedings are instituted against him under Regulation 351A after he has attained the age of superannuation and has retired from service and is not under re-employment that the limitations imposed by sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of proviso (a) shall come into play.(Para 6)
In the present case, the respondent had been placed under suspension and charges were also served upon him while he was in service. In such circumstances, proviso (a) did not come into play at all and there was no requirement of obtaining sanction of the Governor. The enquiry which had been instituted prior to the retirement of the respondent and was completed after his retirement could not, therefore, be held to be illegal on the ground of want of sanction of the Governor. The view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal and by the High Court is, therefore, clearly erroneous in law and cannot be sustained.(Para 8)
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.(Para 11)
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), by which the writ petition filed by the State of U.P. was dismissed. In the writ petition challenge was laid to the order dated 10.4.2002 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’) by which the claim petition filed by the respondent R.C. Misra had been allowed and the order passed by the State Government for recovery of certain amount from his pension/gratuity was set aside.
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.
4. We have heard Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent and have perused the record.
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:-
”........... This enquiry was thus, initiated few days before the date of retirement of the respondent no.1. At that time there was no occasion for the State Government to take any permission or sanction under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. During continuance of the enquiry the respondent no.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation but no sanction or permission as required under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations was taken from the Governor by the petitioner.”
The High Court repelled the contention raised on behalf of the appellant State of U.P. that as the enquiry had been initiated before the respondent had attained the age of superannuation, no sanction of the Governor was required and for this reliance was placed on a decision of this Court rendered in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey (1996) 9 SCC 395.
6. Regulations 351A and 470 of Civil Service Regulations read as under:-
351A. 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
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.