Allahabad High Court
Ram Pratap Tiwari vs State Of U.P.Through Secretary ... on 17 April, 2013
Bench: Shabihul Hasnain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 4187 of 2006
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary Revenue And 3 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Dr.L.P.Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.11.2005 passed by opposite party No.2, as contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition. By this order the Commissioner Faizabad Division, Faizabad has passed the order of punishment on 29.11.2005. By this order the earlier punishment order dated 23.12.1993 has been confirmed. The petitioner was removed from service by the earlier order dated 23.12.1993. The petitioner had filed writ petition No.271 (S/S) of 1994. This Court set aside the order on the ground that the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner prior to passing of the punishment order. Although a ground has been raised by learned Standing counsel that the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice to have been caused by non-supply of inquiry report. However, this Court did not agree with the argument of learned Standing counsel and set aside the removal order. This Court fixed a date on which the petitioner was to appear before the opposite parties, who were supposed to give him a copy of the inquiry report. Lateron the petitioner was given a chance to file objection to the inquiry report and the opposite parties had to consider the objection and to pass fresh order. The petitioner appeared on the date fixed and was given the inquiry report. However, instead of filing any objection to the inquiry report and the procedure of the inquiry adopted, the petitioner simply narrated the facts which he had already done in the previous inquiry. He did not take any objection about any witness, document or interpretation by the inquiry officer. He did not even ask for cross examination of any witness or the permission to produce his witness in defence. The appointing authority has explained in his subsequent order that since the petitioner did not raise any substantial question about the procedure of the inquiry or its merits, the earlier order has been upheld and reiterated. There does not appear to be any good reason to interfere with the order of the appointing authority passed on 29.11.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one more objection that since the inquiry was continued after he retired from service, hence the permission of Governor of the State was required. He further adds that once his pension papers were processed and pension was allowed to be given to the petitioner it became imperative that Rule 351-A should have been adhered to and the pension could not have been stopped without the permission of His Excellency the Governor.
Learned Standing counsel has pointed out that the petitioner himself has quoted Section 351-A on page 13 of the writ petition in paragraph 39 which is quoted as under:-
?351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused, pecuniary loss to government by a grave misconduct, or to have caused, pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement;
Provided that-
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment.
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor,
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made.?
It is clear that no permission of the Governor was required for conducting inquiry as the inquiry was instituted during service time of the petitioner. So far as the question of pension is concerned, it is an ancillary concept. Moreover, in the case of the petitioner there is direction of this Court to conduct inquiry and pass fresh order in the inquiry. If an order of the judicial authority like High Court has been passed for passing fresh orders regarding punishment, no statute can override the direction of High Court. The inquiry which has been conducted is in accordance with law and the order which has been passed is on the direction of this Court. The grounds taken by the petitioner are misconceived. The petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2013
RKM.
