Post-retirement proceedings under Regulation 351-A for pension recovery require Governor's prior sanction, four-year limit on events, and full dismissal-like enquiry. Absent compliance, proceedings void; recovery from vested pension right illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

It is stated that the petitioner was working on the post of Chief Medical Officer (C.M.O.), District Rudrapur, and superannuated from service on 31.03.2015. After his retirement, a preliminary enquiry relating to alleged fake taxi bills came to light on 03.05.2016. The then Joint Secretary, Medical Education Department was appointed as the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 09.08.2016, wherein it was alleged that an irregular payment amounting to Rs.83,31,000/- had been made towards forged taxi bills. Pursuant thereto, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply and also to indicate whether he desired a personal hearing and to disclose the names of witnesses whom he wished to examine or cross-examine. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, a five-member enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the alleged misappropriation and loss caused to the public exchequer on account of payments made against alleged forged taxi bills incurred during visits of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The enquiry committee, after considering the material on record, concluded that the petitioner had acted in violation of the Finance Rules, resulting in gross financial irregularities and consequential loss to the public exchequer.

2. It is further stated that respondent no.2, vide letter dated 20.11.2014, had written to the Principal Secretary, Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, seeking appointment of a competent enquiry officer. The enquiry report prepared by the previous committee was enclosed with the said letter. An F.I.R. dated 07.02.2015 was also registered alleging that a sum of Rs.83,31,000/- had been misappropriated by M/s Kala Tours and Travels, Dehradun, by submitting forged and fabricated taxi bills. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer submitted a report allegedly establishing charges against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was thereafter served upon the petitioner alleging that the expenditure incurred under Budget Head No.3 (Council of Ministers) had been wrongly disbursed under Budget Head No.12 (Medical, Health and Family Welfare). The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet. Vide letter dated 19.02.2018, the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report, an order dated 21.12.2018 was passed imposing penalty upon the petitioner by directing recovery of Rs.83,31,000/-; that, thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued an Office Order dated 19.08.2019 directing deduction of 50% of the provisional pension accruing to the petitioner.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.12.2018 and 19.08.2019. The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 24.05.2022, dismissed the claim petition holding that there was no illegality in the punishment order and upheld the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Bench at Nainital, in Claim Petition No.31/NB/DB/2020 (Dr. Rakesh Sinha vs. State of Uttarakhand);

(ii) A writ of certiorari quashing the Office Order No.2045/XXVIII-2/2018-01(31)2014 dated 21.12.2018, wh