Interpretation of 'grave misconduct' under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation and its application to the charges against the respondent.

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Saxena, learned counsel for respondent-1.

2. The writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

3. By means of the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has quashed the Office Memorandum dated 15.7.2013 by which permission for holding departmental proceeding was granted by the Governor as contemplated under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulation. The Tribunal after exchange of affidavits between the parties, came to the conclusion that the charges made against respondent-1 did not come within the term 'grave misconduct', therefore, allowed the claim petition filed by respondent-1. The Tribunal while allowing the claim petition relied upon the two decisions of this Court reported in 2007(3) LBESR 663(All), Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. and others. (Paragraph 26 of the report) and 2011 (1) LBESR 880 (All), Shardindu v. State of U.P. And others, where also the same proposition of law has been laid down.

4. The case of respondent-1 was not found to be covered within the term 'grave misconduct' inasmuch as out of four charges levelled against respondent-1 charge no.4 was not proved, charge nos. 1 and 3 were partially proved and only charge no.2 was proved, which was pertaining to non supply of required information and documents by respondent-1, which he had supplied during the course of enquiry though with some delay. The Tribunal has found that the charges levelled against the respondent-1 did not come within the purview of the term 'grave misconduct' though it was contended before the Tribunal that by not furnishing required information and documents to the Chief Technical Examiner for conducting enquiry respondent-1 had committed grave misconduct.

5. The Tribunal while considering the aforesaid case recorded the following finding.

"It is not disputed that the petitioner superannuated on 28.2.2013 and the impugned Office memorandum was passed after superannuation of the petitioner on 15.7.2013. The office memorandum is passed under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in order to attract the provisions of CSR 351-A the employee must be found to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence. His contention is that in the case before us none of the two ingredients are present. He has invited our attention to the charges contained in the charge sheet (Annexure no.2). Charge no.1 is in respect of furnishing information and documents so as to facilitate enquiry by the Chief Technical Examiner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not furnish the desired information and documents. Charges no.2 and 3 are interrelated. We are not referring to charge no.4 because it has not been proved and no punishment was awarded on the basis of charge no.4. The question for consideration is whether charges no.1, 2 and 3 can be termed as 'grave misconduct' though charges no.1 and 3 are only partially proved. Charge no.2 is proved against the petitioner. The petitioner's learned counsel has submitted that withholding or forfeiting of pension permanently can only be for grave misconduct. In support he has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in 2007 (3) LBESR 663 (All), Bhagwati Prasad Verma v. State of U.P. & others where it has been laid down that action can be taken only if the omission or failure is not ordinary but something more. Mere neglect or default may not be covered by it. In service jurisprudence grave has its own connotation. It is not a mistake or mere irregularity. We may quote para 26 of the report hereunder: -

"26. We would now examine whether the order withholding 5% pension can be upheld. We have already extracted Regul