IMPORTANT POINT
The right to receive pension is a property right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra alongwith Mrs. Rani Singh and Mrs. Alina, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.12.1990, 12.4.1991 and 7.5.1991 (Annexures-11, 12 and 10 respectively). It has been prayed to issue writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned orders referred above and not to stop the pension of the petitioner and not to make any recoveries from the petitioner by adopting coercive means or otherwise in pursuance of the impugned orders.

3. At the time of filing of the writ petition, vide order dated 16.7.1991, following interim order was granted:

“Put up this petition after two weeks to enable the Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. In the meantime, the opposite parties shall pay and continue to pay pension to the petitioner as hereto fore the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.”

4. At the very outset, it is essential to advert to the brief factual background to provide context to the manner in which the present proceedings have arisen.

5. The petitioner was appointed in the Provincial Medical Services, Cadre-I on 22.9.1959. In the year 1974, he was promoted to the post of Consultant (equivalent to the Chief Medical Officer). He was posted at Sitapur between the period 29.6.1978 to 5.2.1980. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kanpur vide order dated 6.2.1980 to join as Joint Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Kanpur and he remained there up to 27.2.1980.

6. The petitioner received a demotion order dated 26.2.1980, alleging the charge of illegal purchases of medicine during his tenure at Sitapur. He challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 521 of 1980 (C.B. Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.) before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 2.9.1982 and the demotion order was quashed.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to preventive detention under the National Security Act, which was challenged vide Writ Petition No. 3480 of 1981 before this Court and the detention order was quashed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4.9.1981. He was served with charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding by the Administrative Tribunal levelling seven charges on him on 28.4.1982. He was then served with second charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding levelling eight charges on 31.5.1982.

8. The disciplinary proceedings were stayed by the Administrative Tribunal till the decision of the Special Judge, Lucknow as both the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding was based on same set of facts vide order dated 21.5.1983. The petitioner was superannuated from service on 31.1.1985.

9. The petitioner was served notice to show cause as to why stay of disciplinary proceedings be not vacated and stipulating that proceeding would proceed ex-parte in event of non turning up of the petitioner on 29.2.1988. The Administrative Tribunal apprised the petitioner that disciplinary enquiry was fixed for 28.4.1989 vide letter dated 27.3.1989. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid letter, filed his reply dated 25.4.1989. He filed reply to the letter dated 2.6.1989, requesting the Tribunal to consider his objection and submissions made vide letter dated 25.4.1989. He then sent letter to Administrative Tribunal on 23.9.1989, requesting to communicate the decision of the Tribunal on his applications dated 25.4.1989 and 22.6.1989.

10. The respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of U.P. issued an order dated 20.12.1990, whereby full pension of the petitioner was stopped as also alleged loss caused to the government was sought to be recovered. Consequential order dated 12.4.1991 was issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. Director General, Directorate of Medical, Health Services and Family Welfare. Both the aforesaid orders were served upon the petitioner by means of letter dated 7.5.1991 of C.M.O.