Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Dinesh Kant Srivastava on 30 May, 2022
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3301 of 2022
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Irrigation And Water Resources Govt. U.P. Lko. And Anr
Respondent :- Dinesh Kant Srivastava
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner-State, Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation and Water Resources, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow, and Shri Arjun Prasad Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee.
The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 23 September 2021, passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1823 of 2019, 'Dinesh Kant Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others', whereby, order of punishment dated 30 August 2019, directing deduction of 5% from pension for having caused loss to the government at Rs.40,391/- has been set aside and quashed.
Sole submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Tribunal has set aside the punishment order for the defect committed by the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority in conducting the enquiry. It is urged that the matter be remanded to enable the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry from the stage of defect. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court rendered in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajit Singh, (Civil Appeal No. 2049-2050 of 2022) decided on March 22, 2022; State of U.P. and others vs. Harihar Bholenath, (2006) 13 SCC 460; and Chairman, Line Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, to submit that generally the matter should be remanded to the disciplinary proceeding to conclude the departmental enquiry expeditiously from the stage of defect, in the event, the punishment order is set aside on a technical procedural irregularity.
We have perused the impugned judgment with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, it transpires that the charge sheet dated 07 August 2006, came to be issued against the respondent-government servant, working as Land Conservation Officer, for causing pecuniary loss to the government. Respondent replied to the charge sheet denying the allegation, consequently, the departmental proceedings was initiated in terms of Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short '1999 Rules'). It is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 26 June 2008, however, Disciplinary Authority did not take any decision, nor, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The matter was kept pending until petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 April 2015. After lapse of four years from the date of retirement, on persistent effort, of the petitioner, show cause notice was issued on 5 April 2019. Petitioner replied to the notice, thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 30 August 2019. Learned Tribunal after noting the provisions of the Government Order dated 2 November 1995, mandating that the disciplinary proceeding against a retired government employee should have necessarily be completed within six months from the date of retirement provided there is no other impediment. In the circumstances, learned Tribunal declined to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry denovo from the stage of defect having regard to the inordinate delay.
On specific query, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not stated as to why the enquiry was kept pending for more than 13 years. It is nowhere averred in the writ petition that the enquiry could not be concluded for the fault of the respondent government servant.
In the circumstances, the Court at this belated stage is not inclined to direct that the enquiry be conducted from the stage of defect as that would tantamount to subjecting the retired government servant to unnecessary harassment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgement and order.
In view thereof, writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner-State is directed to release the post retiral benefits, including, gratuity and commutation of pension preferably within two months from the date of filing of cerfitied copy of this order, failing which, respondent-employee shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the entire amount from the due date to the date of actual payment received.
No cost.
Order Date :- 30.5.2022
Mukesh Kr.
(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J) (Suneet Kumar,J)
