Ravindra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 4847 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 31
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51133 of 2008
 
Petitioner :- Ravindra Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Mishra
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.M.Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the charge memo dated 26.04.2008. A further direction has also been sought to be issued upon the respondent no. 2 to pay the provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. to the petitioner.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts are that the petitioner was posted as Technical Officer in U.P. Warehousing Corporation, Bareilly. He retired on reaching his age of superannuation on 31.05.2005. On his retirement he was paid only Rs. 2,60,000/- and his other dues as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and group insurance have been withheld.

The petitioner made several representations and reminders for the payment of dues. Those representations and reminders did not find any favour from the concerned officers. It is stated that after two years of his retirement on 23.01.2007 a charge memo has been issued against him in respect of alleged loss caused to the Ware House. The petitioner challenged the said charge memo mainly on the ground that the charges against the petitioner relates to more than four years old. The same charges are of 1998 & 2000.

A perusal of various charges would indicate that the alleged loss mentioned in the charge memo relates back to almost four years prior to the petitioner's retirement.

I have heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulations 351-A & 470 of Civil Services Regulations, the departmental proceedings would have been initiated after the retirement in respect to the charges, which relates back, within four years. In the present case the charges are of 1998, 2002, 2003 & 2004.

He further urged that he stood retired in the year 2005. However, the department proceedings have been initiated on 26.04.2008, after three years of his retirement.

He further urged that the decision to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is arbitrary and unfair as after three years of his retirement, he has been denied his all post retiral benefits and he has been called upon to answer some of the charges pertaining to year 1998-2000. At this distance of time, he further urged that the petitioner is unable to submit his reply after his retirement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on similar fact on a Division Bench judgements in Writ-A No. 19390 of 2011 decided on 18.01.2012 (Girish Chandra Dubey Vs. State of U.P. And Another), Writ A No. 24752 of 2012 decided on 22.05.2012 (Lal Babu Vs. State of U.P. And Another) and in the case of 2008 UPLBEC (1) 808 Rajya Krishi Utpandan Mandi Parishad Vs. Public Services Tribunal U.P.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 submitted that the service conditions of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation. He had drawn the attention of the Court towards the Regulations which deals with imposition of penalty. The regulation 16(1)(e) provides "recovery from pay, security deposit or otherwise of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee."

He has further submitted that the writ petition is pre mature as petitioner can participate in the disciplinary proceeding.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and have also perused the record.

The petitioner was a technician and he retired in the year 2005. After three years of his retirement the memorandum of charge has been issued to him wherein some of the allegations with regard to the alleged loss pertaining to the year 1998-2000, 2002, 2003 & 2004. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have initiated disciplinary proceeding even after three years of his retirement. There is no explanation in the counter affidavit that the disciplinary proceeding was not initiated when the petitioner was in service particularly when the charges were pertaining to the year 1998-2000. There is no explanation also initiating the disciplinary proceeding after a lapse of three years of his retirement. A meagre amount has been paid to the petitioner after his retirement. In the counter affidavit there is no reference that the petitioner's service record was unsatisfactory and in past he was awarded any adverse entry in respect of negligence or misconduct. The charge sheet also indicates that along with the petitioner, names of some other employees have been mentioned for causing the peculiar loss with the Corporation. It is not clear whether those employees also retired or in the service.

In the case of Girish Chandra Dubey (Supra), the petitioner was Assistant Store Keeper in U.P. State Warehousing Corporation at Siddharth Nagar. He retired in the year 2009 and disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him within one year of his retirement on 20.02.2010 for the loss caused on wheat & rice of the Food and Civil Supplies Department in the year 2000-2001, 2001-2002 & 2002-2003 and the total value of the loss caused by the petitioner was worked out as Rs. 19 Lac. A Division Bench of this Court quashed the disciplinary proceeding and took a view that no disciplinary inquiry can be initiated against the employee as the incident was more than four years old prior to the retirement of the employee and the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the year 2010. It is apt to extract the relevant part of the order:

"So far as petitioner is concerned, no disciplinary enquiry can be initiated against him as the incident is more than four years old, prior to the retirement of the petitioner as well as show cause notice dated 20.2.2010. In the show cause it is not stated as to when the amount was deducted by the Food and Civil Supplies Department from the bills of the Corporation. Further there is no explanation as to why the proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner, upto the date of his retirement, or even thereafter. "

Likewise in the case of Lal Babu (Supra), the petitioner was employee of the same corporation and in the said case also after his retirement in the year 2010 the alleged loss caused by him and which was intended to be recovered by the Corporation. A Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:

"In our opinion, after the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2010 he cannot be proceeded with or held liable for the alleged loss caused to the Corporation more than six years prior to his retirement. The respondents are thus not justified in withholding the amount of leave encashment, contributory provident fund and security. "

The same view has been taken by a Division Bench in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (Supra).

Learned counsel for the Corporation was unable to point out any provision under the U.P. Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation which empowers the Management to initiate the disciplinary proceeding after three years of the retirement.

For the reasons given here in above, the disciplinary proceeding in pursuance of the charge memo dated 26.04.2008, which relates to the petitioner is quashed.

Respondents are directed to pay the entire outstanding dues payable to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 8.10.2012

Sandeep