By the Court.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel- 2 for the State of U.P.

2. The petitioner is a retired Principal of a Government Degree College. He was appointed as member of Higher Education Council from 9.7.2007 to 2.7.2009. During his aforesaid tenure he amassed huge wealth disapportionate to his disclosed sources of income. Accordingly, an Open Vigilance Inquiry was ordered against him.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 20.11.2007 and the entire proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof as well as the demi official letter dated 17.8.2015.

4. The order dated 20.11.2017 states that an Open Vigilance Inquiry is under way against the petitioner and that he could submit his reply in respect of the points enumerated in the enclosed format.

5. The demi official order dated 17.8.2015 which has been filed as Annexure- 24 to the amendment application states that on account of corruption and financial irregularities the State Vigilance Committee in its 148 meeting had decided to hold an Open Vigilance Inquiry against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner has moved application for amending the writ petition and by the amendment a further prayer has been made for quashing the Departmental Inquiry report dated 8.7.2014 and 17.5.2015 has also the resolution of the State Vigilance Committee passed in its 148 meeting to hold an Open Vigilance Inquiry against the petitioner.

7. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not a public servant as he has retired and that in view of Rule 351- A of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, no Departmental Inquiry can be held against him after expiry of four years from the date of the incident or his retirement. He has placed reliance upon certain decisions of the Court wherein considering Rule 351- A of the aforesaid Rules it has been held that no Department Inquiry can be instituted against a delinquent employee after he has retired more particularly after the expiry of a period of four years.

8. We are afraid that the aforesaid authorities are of no use in the present case as no Departmental Inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner has been subjected to an Open Vigilance Inquiry most probably under the Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment Act 1965.

9. The Government of Uttar Pradesh vide notification dated 29th August, 1977 provides for the following functions of the Vigilance Establishment :

2. “Functions.—The Vigilance Establishment shall perform the following functions :

(a) Keep the Government informed of all the cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct, misbehaviour and other malpractice involving public servants that come to its notice;

(b) Collect intelligence on its own initiative or on the orders of Government in the Vigilance Department relating to corruption of any individual public servant or public servants belonging to a department, class or category ;

(c) Make enquiries, secret or open, and investigations into cases of corruption, bribery, misconduct, misbehaviour or other malpractices, that may be referred to it from time to time by the Government in the Vigilance Department. This condition shall not apply to trap cases against non-gazetted Government servants and public servants of similar rank covered by order No. UPA-7/65- Order/76 (Fifth), dated August 16, 1976 ;’’

10. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that the functions of the Vigilance Establishment have been classified into three categories and the first category contained in Clause- (a) relates to the corruption and malpractices involving public servants; the second category contained in Clause- (b) is regarding corruption of any individual public servant or public servants belonging to a department; and the third category contained in Clause (c) covers inquiries secret or open and investigation into cas