Departmental inquiries against retired employees must be initiated within four years of the alleged misconduct, with the charge-sheet marking the official start of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Misra and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

2. Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions have been connected and are being decided by a common judgment.

3. On the basis of arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions and pleadings so exchanged therein, the question involved in the writ petitions is that as to whether departmental inquiry would be treated to have been initiated with effect from the date when the order for initiation of departmental inquiry is issued or from the date when the charge-sheet is issued to the charged employee seeking defence reply.

4. In the first writ petition i.e. Writ-A No.4265 of 2024, the petitioner challenged the order dated 19.01.2016 passed by the Director, Local Bodies Directorate, Lucknow initiating the departmental inquiry against the petitioner after about ten months from his retirement on the minor allegations for some work, which was allegedly done by him, in the year 2010-11; though no charge sheet was issued immediately after the impugned order dated 19.01.2016. The impugned order dated 19.01.2016 was issued invoking Regulation 351-A of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (hereinafter referred to as “the CSR”). The provision of Regulation 351-A of the CSR would not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as such departmental inquiry could have been initiated against a retired employee, if the alleged misconduct has been committed by the retired employee within four years from his retirement or from the order initiating departmental inquiry but in the present case, the allegations are related to the year 2010-11, the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2015 and order for initiating departmental inquiry issued on 19.01.2016.

5. In the first writ petition, the specific query was raised by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 as to whether any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, if so, any short counter affidavit may be filed brining on record the copy of charge sheet and outcome of the departmental inquiry, if any; then, copy of one charge sheet dated 16.07.2024 was given to the petitioner for conducting the departmental inquiry relating to the alleged incident of the year 2010-11. Challenging the charge sheet dated 16.07.2024, the petitioner filed second writ petition i.e. Writ- A No.6945 of 2024.

6. The brief information relating to the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 07.01.1987 and further given the status of Ad-hoc employee w.e.f. 07.03.1995 under Rule 31 of the U.P. Palika (Centralised Service) Rules, 1966. Since no regularization and no retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner, so he agitated his grievances through representation to the department and in reply, the department has justified its action on the ground that the departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner.

7. Sri Misra has submitted that this is an admitted position as per affidavits filed by the respective parties of the writ petitions that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2015 from the service of Nagar Panchayat and his se