Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(All) 58
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
, J
Malhotra K. L. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2007 (SB)
An inquiry against a government servant must adhere strictly to prescribed procedures to uphold validity.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order dated 9th September 2009 to recover dues post-retirement. The court found the inquiry against the petitioner was flawed, violating U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, particularly Rules 7 and 9 concerning proper appointment and notification procedures. The petitioner succeeds in having the impugned order quashed, with further inquiry permitted under compliance rules.
Result: 'The impugned order dated 9.9.2009 is hereby quashed.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed for quashing an order due to delayed retirement benefits and flawed inquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments raised against the legality of the inquiry process and lack of notification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 3. court observed that inquiry procedures were not followed, establishing grounds for the claim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. inquiry was vitiated due to procedural violations. (Para 17) |
| 5. writ petition allowed with an order to quash the impugned decision. (Para 18) |
1. The petitioner, who happens to be retired Superintending Engineer, has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers.
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 09.09.09 passed by the respondent No. 1 as communicated vide covering letter dated 22.09.09 of the respondent No. 2 (Annexure - 1 to the accompanying writ petition).
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith pay to the petitioner his entire post retiral benefits which remains unpaid since last 6 years of his retirement, along with suitable interest thereon. (III) Issue any other and further writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(IV) Award the costs to the petitioner.
2. Vide order dated 9th September, 2009, the Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Government, Lucknow has observed as under:
(Editor's Note.-- Vernacular matter omitted)
3. Pursuant thereto, a communication letter dated 22nd September, 2009 was sent by Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow to the petitioner.
4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner has retired from the post of Superintending Engineer. After three years of his retirement, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, which was after obtaining sanction from the Hon'ble Governor under Regulation 351(A) of Civil Services Regulation. Consequently, a charge - sheet was served on the petitioner on 22.3.2006. The reply to the aforesaid charge - sheet was given by the petitioner on 19.4.2006. It appears that after submission of inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer, on 18.5.2006, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner has submitted his reply. It appears no decision was taken by the disciplinary authority after considering the inquiry report. Hence the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2007 (SB) at Lucknow Bench of this Court which was finally disposed of with the direction that final order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said Order.
5. However, no final decision was taken by the disciplinary authority till March, 2008 and in the meantime a supplementary inquiry report was called for by the disciplinary authority without notice to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto another Inquiry Officer, in turn, submitted the supplementary inquiry report on 17.9.2008. It is stated that after one year of submission of supplementary inquiry report vide order dated 9.9.2009 the impugned order of recovery has been passed, which was communicated to the petitioner through order dated 22.9.2009.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of R.9(1) of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. In his submission, the earlier Inquiry Officer retired in the year 2007 and subsequently a supplementary inquiry report was submitted in the year 2008 (to be more specific date 17.9.2008) by another Inquiry Officer, which is unsustainable in law.
8. Without going into further details of writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit we would like to concentrate ourselves only on th
