IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Dr Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 10425 of 2024
Decided On : 20-12-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is a retired deputy director facing charges. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues against applicability of csr. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents defend disciplinary actions referencing applicable rules. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court analyzes csr relevance for mandi parishad employees. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. court concludes csr not applicable to mandi parishad. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. established principle against disciplinary action post-retirement. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. csr amendments affirm no punishment for non-pensionable positions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. court details entitlement to gratuity under law. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. second point concerning retirement benefits clarified. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 10. writ petition allowed; order challenged quashed. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner namely, Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi is a retired Deputy Director (Administration/Commerce) of Mandi Parishad, Prayagraj. He has been served with the chargesheet dated 14th September, 2023 to hold domestic enquiry under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999) read with Section 351-A of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (hereinafter referred to as “CSR”) in the matter of financial loss to the tune of Rs. 5.13 crores caused to the Mandi Parishad for his alleged conspiracy and mismanagement in procurement and sale of paddy and thereby committing embezzlement. He has also challenged the consequential charge sheet dated 5.12.2023 and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus for release of gratuity amount with further interest thereupon for delay and has also prayed for revised pay-scale benefits and consequential arrears of salary from 1/1/2006 till 18th Mach, 2011 as per office memorandum issued on 23rd August, 2023.
2. For assailing the institution of departmental enquiry and the chargesheet and questioning the act of respondents in withholding gratuity, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised following arguments:
(i) CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (CSR) do not apply to the employees of the Mandi Parishad, more especially in view of amendment carried out to the U.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations 1984 vide 7th amendment dated 30th September, 2014;
(ii) Even, if CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS apply, its Article 351-A would not apply as Mandi Parishad establishment is not a pensionable establishment; and
(iii) The gratuity admissible to the employee shall be governed under the Payment of Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984 and unless and until conditions prescribed under the Act are attained to withhold the gratuity, gratuity cannot be withhold.
3. In support of his argument, Mr. Shah has taken the Court to the amended provision of Regulation 28 of 1984 Regulations that are reproduced hereunder:
| “COLUMN-1 | COLUMN-1 |
Existing regulation 28. The rules relating to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board. | Regulations as hereby substituted In relation to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Appeals and disciplinary proceedings) Rules, 1999, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board.” |
4. Citing the above provisions, Mr. Shah submitted that prior to 2014 while rules in general relating to disciplinary proceeding , the appeal and revision against punishment as applicable to the employees of the State Government, were made applicable, but after 2014 amended, Rules, 1999 were specifically made applicable to the employees of the Board. So according to Mr. Shah, CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS would not apply because the amended provision of Regulation 28
State of Allahabad Bank and Another v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association
State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava
Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey
The applicability of Civil Service Regulations depends on employment nature; disciplinary proceedings cannot continue against retired employees without specific provisions, and gratuity cannot be wit....
Departmental proceedings against retired employees cannot be instituted under Civil Service Regulations if the post is non-pensionable; gratuity cannot be withheld without meeting statutory condition....
Gratuity is not payable during pending disciplinary proceedings against a government servant, while provisional pension is allowed until the conclusion of such proceedings.
Gratuity withheld pending departmental proceedings post-retirement under CCS Pension Rules; leave encashment and insurance must be released absent specific legal prohibition.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is a beneficial welfare legislation that overrides internal service regulations. Forfeiture of gratuity is strictly limited to the specific conditions prescribed un....
Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld without proper proceedings and findings of misconduct; Rule 43(c) requires adherence to principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.