Gratuity is not payable during pending disciplinary proceedings against a government servant, while provisional pension is allowed until the conclusion of such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ratandeep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 9991 of 2024 (Buddha Prakash Sachan v. State of Uttar Pradesh), whereby the writ petition has been disposed of, with certain observations.

3. The records of the case indicate that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner-appellant, seeking quashing of letter dated 22.3.2023 issued by the Deputy Director (Agricultural Development), Jalaun at Orai, withholding a sum of Rs. 4,46,880/- out of the gratuity payable to the petitioner. A challenge was also raised to charge-sheet dated 26.4.2024 issued to the petitioner. The grievance, which had been sought to be raised by the petitioner, was that he has not been paid the balance of his gratuity, which is a total sum of Rs. 14,17,251/- after deducting the sum of Rs. 4,46,880/-, i.e. even if the order dated 22.3.2023 is to be upheld.

4. The argument which was sought to be put forward was that while in service, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner marked by the issue of a charge-sheet or the petitioner being placed under suspension pending inquiry. It was pointed out that the petitioner had retired on 30.6.2022, whereas the charge-sheet was issued to him on 26.4.2024, to contend that no disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner could be initiated after his retirement, without the Governor's sanction under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations.

5. During pendency of the proceedings before the writ Court, the District Magistrate, Jalaun filed his personal affidavit, wherein it was averred as follows:

''4. That in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 7.8.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was not suspended pending enquiry in connection with the matter regarding which, the charge-sheet dated 26.4.2024 has been issued. It is further submitted that, a sanction of Hon'ble Governor under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation was granted on 23.11.2023 pursuant to the letter dated 16.5.2023 sent by the Director, Agriculture, U.P. Lucknow. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a photo stat copy of the letters dated 23.11.2023 & and sanction letter dated 16.5.2023 are being filed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1 & 2 to this affidavit.''

6. Alongwith the affidavit, a copy of the memo dated 23.11.2023 issued by the Special Secretary to the State Government and addressed to the Director (Agriculture), U.P., Lucknow, conveying the Governor's sanction under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, sanctioning the holding of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, post retirement had been appended. The order also imposed an embargo on the payment of the petitioner's post retiral benefits.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual position having been placed, with regard to the sanction having been granted by the Governor, the writ Court held that the petitioner had no case to canvass regarding his claim for quashing of the charge-sheet or in regard to payment of the gratuity-balance or whole. It was observed that the petitioner would be entitled to his provisional pension which he was receiving.

8. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, further observed that the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner will be concluded within a period of three months after giving due opportunity to him. It was also emphasised that in the disciplinary proceedings, it would be for the State-respondents to prove the charges against the petitioner by producing evidence both oral and documentary.

9. The principal ground, which is sought to be urged in support of the appeal, is that Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations deals exclusive