Post-retirement proceedings under Civil Services Regulations require prior departmental or judicial inquiries; failure to follow due process invalidates recovery actions against a retired employee.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Budhwar, J.

Heard Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 as well as Shri Arjun Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. In the view of the order proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the sixth respondent.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the sixth respondent-institution, Sarvodaya Mandir Inter College, Mahawatpur Bawli is an institution which is aided upto Junior High School level, however, the Classes 9 to 12 is running as viit viheen. The writ petitioner claims to have been appointed as an assistant teacher in the Junior High School of the sixth respondent-institution and thereafter post occurrence of the vacancy on the post of principal and he was allowed to work as principal he superannuated on 31.03.2021. Post retirement, the writ petitioner approached the respondents for the payment and pension and thereafter the competent authority proceeded to issue a PPO dated 05.07.2021 for processing of the pension of the writ petitioner. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that one Shri Babu Ram who is the Assistant Teacher who claimed appointment on the basis of forged certificates was subjected to proceedings and the services of Babu Ram was declared to be void by virtue of an order dated 07.01.2022.

4. Being aggrieved against dislodging of his services, he preferred a complaint dated 22.08.2022 before the second respondent, Mid Day Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow regarding the misappropriation of the funds related to mid day meals. On the basis of the complaint dated 22.08.2022 of Shri Babu Ram, the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent constituted a three member committee while issuing the notice on 30.09.2022, requiring the writ petitioner who at that time stood superannuated to submit his reply/clarification. The writ petitioner claims to have submitted his clarification/reply on 30.10.2022 before the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat mentioning therein that he be furnished complete documents which were being sought to be relied upon in order to initiate proceedings against him. However, according to the writ petitioner without furnishing the document as required by the writ petitioner making the basis of the complaint dated 22.08.2022, the inquiry committee submitted an ex-parte inquiry report dated 07.11.2022 holding that the writ petitioner had committed financial misappropriation. The writ petitioner on coming to know about the same submitted a representation/letter dated 09.11.2022 before the inquiry officer, Block Education Officer, Baraut, District Baghpat, thereafter, a notice is stated to have been issued by the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent on 11.11.2022 requiring the writ petitioner to submit his version/response by 22.11.2022. The writ petitioner on 17.11.2022 submitted a letter to the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat requiring the third respondent to furnish the documents which were being made the basis of initiate proceedings against him post retirement. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that a communication was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, district Baghpat, third respondent on 21.11.2022 and the manager of the committee of manageme