Back
A.P. SEN AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1987 (arising out of S.L.P. No. 13512 of 1986),
D/- 25-2-1987.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Shri. Brahm Datt Sharma and another, Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Civil Service Regulations - Article 470(b) – Pension – Misconduct - Appeal are necessary to be recapitulated was employed as an Executive Engineer in Irrigation Department of State - A number of charges were framed against him and after departmental inquiry charges were found proved consequently - He was dismissed from service by State Govt Order dated November - He unsuccessfully challenged validity of Order before U-P- Public Service Tribunal - Therefore he filed a writ petition under Art- 226 of Constitution before High Court challenging order of dismissal – Held, High Courts order is not sustainable for yet another reason - Respondents writ petition challenging order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on thereafter nothing remained pending before High Court - No miscellaneous application could be filed in writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years - If respondent was aggrieved by notice he could have filed a separate petition under Art- 226 of Constitution challenging validity of notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him- respondent was not entitled to assail validity of notice before High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in writ petition which had already been decided - Appeal allowed
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the validity of a show cause notice issued under civil service regulations concerning the forfeiture of pension and gratuity due to alleged misconduct. The employee had been dismissed from service following departmental charges but challenged the dismissal order in a higher forum, which was ultimately quashed on procedural grounds related to the opportunity to defend (!) (!) .
The employee was permitted to receive pension and gratuity benefits as if in service until superannuation, but later, the State issued a notice to forfeit these benefits based on allegations of misconduct, even after the departmental proceedings had been quashed. The employee responded to the notice, but subsequent proceedings questioned the validity of the notice itself (!) (!) .
The High Court initially quashed the show cause notice, holding that since the disciplinary proceedings had been quashed, the State could not initiate proceedings under pension regulations based on the same allegations. However, this decision was contested, and it was argued that the proceedings had not been entirely nullified; rather, they were only set aside on procedural grounds, leaving the charges and allegations alive and open for further action (!) (!) .
The appellate court clarified that even if disciplinary proceedings are quashed, the State retains the authority to initiate separate proceedings under pension regulations, especially when the charges involve misconduct that can impact pension benefits. The regulations empower the authority to reduce or withhold pension if the service was not satisfactory or if misconduct is established, and the opportunity for a hearing should be afforded before such action is taken (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that pension is a property right earned through service and is not a bounty; therefore, any reduction or forfeiture must follow statutory provisions, and the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard before any decision affecting pension benefits is made. The regulations permit the authority to reduce pension based on unsatisfactory service or misconduct, even after retirement, provided due process is followed (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that issuing a show cause notice is a necessary preliminary step that provides the employee an opportunity to respond, and courts should generally refrain from interfering at this stage unless the notice is issued without legal authority. Once the employee responds, the authority can consider the case and proceed according to law (!) (!) .
The final decision was to set aside the High Court’s order quashing the show cause notice and to remand the matter for reconsideration by the State Government. The court noted that proceedings had concluded in the earlier writ petition, and subsequent applications to revive or challenge the notice on the same grounds were not permissible. Each cause of action must be pursued through proper legal channels, and finality of proceedings must be respected (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for the State Government to consider the employee’s reply and proceed lawfully with the matter, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures and providing the employee a fair opportunity to be heard (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific advice related to this case.
Judgement
SINGH,J.:- Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad quashing the State Governments Notice dated 29-1-86 issued under Art. 470(b) Civil Service Regulations, calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his pension and gratuity be not forfeited.
3. Relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recapitulated. Brahm Datt Sharma was employed as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A number of charges were framed against him and after departmental inquiry charges were found proved consequently. He was dismissed from service by the State Govt.s Order dated November 10, 1972. He unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Order before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Therefore he filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal. A single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad by his Order dated 10-8-84 set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the State Governments Order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground that he had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence inasmuch as the recommendation made by the inquiry officer relating to the quantum of punishment against the petitioner had not been communicated to him. While allowing the writ petition the learned single Judge made the following observations :
"I am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has now reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the petition in the High Court, consequently no reinstatement can be ordered today. The petitioner will. however, be entitled to receive all the benefits to which he would be entitled treating him as having been in service from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. The petitioner will also be entitled to receive the pensionary benefits which will be admissible to him as if he continued in service till the date of superannuation. It will be open to the respondents to draw fresh proceedings if it is permissible to do so."
4. The respondent had already retired from service during the pendency of the petition before the High Court. On attaining the age of superannuation disciplinary proceedings could not be taken against him. The State Govt. however issued a notice dated 29-1-86 to him calling upon him to show cause as to why orders for forfeiture of his pension and gratuity be not issued in accordance with Art. 470 (b), Civil Service Regulations as his services have not been wholly satisfactory. The notice contained allegations of misconduct against the respondent regarding financial irregularities committed by him. The respondent submitted a reply to the notice but before the same could be examined or a decision could be taken by the Govt. he filed an application before the High Court in Writ Petn. No. 82449 of 1980 which had already been finally disposed of on 10-8-1984. By his Order dated July 11, 1986 the learned single Judge of the High Court held that since the departmental proceedings taken against the respondent had already been quashed, it was not open to the State Govt. to issue show cause notice under Art. 470(b), Civil Service Regulations, on those very allegations which formed charges in the disciplinary proceedings. The learned single Judge quashed the show cause notice and directed the State Govt. to pay arrears of salary, pension and other allowances to the respondent.
5. The question which falls for consideration is whether notice dated 29-1-86 was invalid and liable to be quashed. The learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the notice on the sole ground that the allegations specified in the show cause notice were the same which had been the subject matter of departmental inquiry resulting in the respondents dismissal from service, and since dismissal order had been quashed in the writ petition, it was not open to the State Govt. to take procee
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
