Allahabad High Court
Chandra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 19 December, 2013
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Sanjay Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court A.F.R.
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1964 of 2013
Appellant :- Chandra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7 November 2013. By the judgment, which is impugned, the learned Single Judge dismissed a petition filed by the appellant seeking to question several orders, the substance of which is that 10% of the pension which is payable to the appellant has been withheld under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations').
The charge against the appellant which has been held to be proved in pursuance of an enquiry in which the appellant participated is that when the appellant was working on the post of Naib Tehsildar in 1990-91 he had issued a false certificate to one Rama Kant S/o Babu Ram to the effect that he had rendered service in the Government between February 1981 to June 1982. The learned Single Judge has held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and was fair and proper. Following a decision of the Supreme Court in A. Savariar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and another 1, the learned Single Judge has held that once there was tangible evidence to support the charge of misconduct, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out.
The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that no pecuniary loss is found to have been sustained by the Government and hence, no deduction from the pension could have been ordered under regulation 351-A of the Regulations. Regulation 351-A of the Regulations reads as follows:
"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 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 misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement."
Regulation 351-A of the Regulations falls for analysis. Under the regulation, the Government reserves to itself 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 in certain stipulated circumstances. In other words, firstly, the Government can withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it. Secondly, in addition it is open to the Government to order recovery from a pension. There are two components in regulation 351-A of the Regulations each of which operates independently. The first is where a pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, while the second is where the pensioner is found to have been guilty of grave misconduct. If the pensioner is found to be guilty in departmental or judicial proceeding of grave misconduct, it is open to the Government to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part of it. Alternatively, the power under regulation 351-A of the Regulations can be exercised also if the pensioner is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service or during re-employment. In that case, the Government can reimburse itself in regard to the loss or, as the case may be, a part of the pecuniary loss caused. In other words, it would not be a correct reading of regulation 351-A of the Regulations to hold that the power to withhold or withdraw a pension cannot be exercised despite a finding in the departmental or judicial proceeding of grave misconduct on the part of the employee merely on the ground that no pecuniary loss has been sustained by the Government. The power to pass an order under regulation 351-A of the Regulations, in the event of a pecuniary loss being found to have been sustained by the Government, is independent of the power which can be exercised under the regulation where the employee is guilty of grave misconduct as established in the departmental or judicial proceeding.
At this stage, it may also be noted that before its amendment on 6 January 1961, regulation 351-A reserved to the Provincial Government the right to order recovery from the pension 'of any amount on account of loss found in judicial or departmental proceeding to have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service'.The earlier provision insofar as is material reads as follows:-
"351-A. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right to order the recovery from the pension of an officer who entered service on or after 7th August, 1940 of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceeding to have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service."
After the amendment, the provision has now been modified so as to allow the exercise of power under regulation 351-A of the Regulations even in a situation where an employee is found to have been guilty of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceeding. Hence, both the legislative history as well as the plain and literal meaning of regulation 351-A of the Regulations do not support the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant. In the circumstances, the extent of penalty which has been imposed in the present case cannot be regarded as unconscionable. No case for interference is made out.
The special appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.12.2013
RKK/-
(Sanjay Misra, J) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)
