Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... vs Pooran Chand Sharma on 2 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34114-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3412 of 2024
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Pooran Chand Sharma
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Birendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard.
By means of this petition, the State has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal in claim petition No. 2076 of 2021.
The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was posted as group-C, Agricultural Officer in the Agricultural Department of the Government of U.P. when he was compulsorily retired vide order dated 23.07.2018. The said order of compulsory retirement was put to challenge but there was no interim order staying the compulsory retirement. As there were certain allegations of financial irregularities and embezzlement or causing financial loss to the State Exchequer, therefore a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 09.03.2021, to which he submitted his reply and thereafter a final order was passed on 07.04.2021, after seeking permission of his excellency, the Governor, under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, which is the only provision under which such an employee could have been proceeded after his retirement. By means of the said order dated 07.04.2021 recovery of Rs. 11,22,389.40/- was ordered from the retiral benefits/assets and properties of the respondent. This order was put to challenge before the Tribunal by means of aforesaid claim petition no.2076 of 2021. During pendency of claim petition, the order of compulsory retirement dated 23.07.2018 came to be quashed by the UP Public Services Tribunal on 17.12.2021 vide its judgment passed in claim petition no. 1812 of 2018. Consequent to the said judgment of the Tribunal the respondent was reinstated in service on 07.10.2022. However, the fact remains that in the interregnum while he retired from service i.e., from 24.07.2018 to 07.10.2022 the aforesaid proceedings under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations were conducted, resulting in the order dated 07.04.2021, which was impugned in the claim petition bearing no.2076 of 2021, out of which this petition arises.
At this stage it is also relevant to mention that prior to initiation of proceedings on 09.03.2021, earlier, an order of recovery was passed against the respondent relating to the same subject matter on 19.12.2018. The recovery related to the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2014-15. The said order dated 19.12.2018 was challenged by the respondent by means of writ petition No.16918 of 2019 before the Allahabad High Court and the same was stayed on 24.10.2019. During the pendency of the said writ petition, it appears that the respondent filed an appeal against the said order dated 19.12.2018 or maybe he had already filed it before approaching the writ court. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the appellate authority quashed the order dated 19.12.2018 vide order dated 07.09.2020. These facts are mentioned in the impugned judgment itself.
Now the tribunal has quashed the subsequent order dated 07.04.2021 passed under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations on the ground that the order is not a speaking order and while doing so it has also taken into consideration the fact that in view of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 17.12.2021 the respondent is to be treated in service with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement. Now a piquant situation has arisen where the order impugned before the Tribunal was passed while the respondent was retired but by the time the adjudication of the said order came by the Tribunal, he was reinstated into service. We may also point out that while allowing the appeal of the respondent vide order dated 07.09.2020 as referred earlier, the Director Agriculture had ordered for initiation of proceedings under UP Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, as according to him, while passing the order dated 19.12.2018 the same had not been followed. Now by the time this appellate order could be implemented the respondent retired, therefore the proceeding were initiated on 09.03.2021 under Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations as already referred here-in-above.
Considering the aforesaid facts as the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 07.04.2021 on the ground that it is not a speaking order but has not given liberty to proceed afresh and considering the fact that the respondent has now been reinstated in service, therefore, in any case the order passed under Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations would have no meaning but the order of the appellate authority dated 07.09.2020 still holds good and even otherwise a reasoned order, as per rules, is required to be passed by the disciplinary authority with regard to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the respondent.
The Tribunal while allowing the petition has erred in not granting the aforesaid liberty, therefore, we modify the impugned judgment while granting liberty to the petitioners herein to proceed against the respondents afresh, in terms of the UP Government Servant Appeal and Disciplinary Rules, 1999 by issuing a show cause notice, and then conclude the proceedings at the earliest, say within six months of issuance of such show cause notice. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. Needless to say the final order to be passed by the disciplinary authority, on the proceedings to be initiated afresh, would be a reasoned order taking into consideration each and every plea raised by the respondent in his response.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.
[Om Prakash Shukla,J.] [Rajan Roy,J.]
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Vipul
