Allahabad High Court
Dr. Teg Bahadur vs State Of U.P.And 4 Ors. on 26 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 19.11.2025
Delivered on 26.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 36371 of 2013
Dr. Teg Bahadur
..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others
..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prabhakar Awasthi, Prabhav Srivastava, Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ashish Agrawal, C.S.C.
Connected with Writ-A No. 2757 of 2021
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Petitioner before this Court was appointed as Principal of College, namely, Hindu Inter College, Nagina, District Bijnor in the year 2000 and according to his case till 2012 he was able to discharge his duties peacefully. However, as soon as a new Committee of Management assumes charge, trouble for him also started.
2. In the year 2013 a controversy arose that petitioner was staying in the premises of College without any permission and without surrendering HRA. Therefore, an inquiry was conducted and audit objection was raised and finally an order dated 02.02.2013 was passed that petitioner was unauthorizedly occupying the premises from January 2002 and accordingly a direction was passed for recovery of Rs. 2,60,698/- which was challenged before this Court in Writ-A No. 18628 of 2013. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.04.2013 and matter was remitted back with a direction to District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor to enforce recovery only after considering the impact of permission granted by Authorized Controller, the then Appropriate Authority. However, a fresh order dated 08.05.2023 was passed without making any interference in the order of recovery. Said order was challenged in Writ-A No. 36371 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as First Petition) wherein following interim order was passed:
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sri Ashish Agrawal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5.
Record in question reflects that the Principal of the Institution has proceeded to occupy the Guest House of the Institution in question and in order to justify his occupation he has proceeded to take purported permission from the Prabandh Sanchalak who have been in the institution at the said point of time. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, decision has been taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor and as per finding so returned the nature/act of the petitioner cannot be said to be justifiable on the prima-faci basis. The Managing Committee of the Institution has clearly indicated that they are not at all prepared to permit the petitioner to occupy the said premises in question.
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Advocate representing the petitioner has requested that one months' time be accorded for vacating the premises.
Request made is accepted and as the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the premises in question within one month from today, he is permitted to retain the premised for a month from today.
Respondents are accorded six weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' thereafter is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after eight weeks'.
In the meantime, recovery against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if undertaking furnished before this Court is not at all complied with, then it would be open to the respondents to approach the authorities to evict the petitioner by force in that case the protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated and even the amount could be recovered.
3. On basis of record, it is not under much dispute that in the month of April, 2012 an audit report was prepared for the period 2006-07 to 2011-12 in which certain irregularities were pointed out. However, no immediate action was taken on it, except that in the year 2014 salary of petitioner was stopped. Petitioner continued to work till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017.
4. Due to aforesaid reasons when petitioner was neither paid arrears of salary nor his retiral dues were settled, then he filed Writ-A No. 14836 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2019 with direction to consider the grievance of petitioner. A contempt petition was also filed when direction was not followed.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, Additional Director of Education (Secondary) constituted an inquiry committee to look into the allegations on basis of audit report. Issue of arrears of salary and retiral dues, therefore, remained pending.
6. In pursuance of aforesaid the Inquiry Committee submitted a report dated 27.08.2020 which was submitted to Additional Director of Education (Secondary) and accordingly a notice dated 03.11.2020 was issued by District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor to petitioner to present his case.
7. Petitioner submitted his objections on 06.11.2020 mainly on a legal issue that once petitioner has already retired and there is no provision in U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1921) to conduct an inquiry, after retirement proposed action cannot be taken. Thereafter the Additional Director passed an order dated 05.01.2021 directing recovery of more than Rs. 73 lacs from petitioner. Subsequently a consequential order dated 06.01.2021 was also passed and these orders are impugned in Writ-A No. 2757 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as Second Petition) wherein no interim order was passed though it appears that order of recovery is still not executed.
8. So far as dispute involve in First Petition is concerned, Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance on an order dated 25.01.2002 whereby Principal of College has granted permission to petitioner to stay in premises without any rent. Scanned copy of aforesaid order dated 25.01.2002 is pasted hereinafter:
9. I have perused the order impugned in First Petition and of the view that by endorsing to stay without rent also on face of it is not a valid order or permission. The Principal or Authorized Controller has no power to grant permission to petitioner to stay in Government premises without even paying rent as well as electricity charges and without surrendering HRA, which was absolutely contrary to prescribed procedure and rules in terms of relevant provisions of Act, 1921. The power vested with Principal or Authorized Controller was only to allot premises but with condition of payment of rent and other charges. Therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order dated 02.02.2013 whereby a direction was passed to recover the amount towards rent and other charges and recovery to the tune of Rs. 2,60,698/- was determined and in subsequent order dated 08.05.2013 which was passed on basis of a direction passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 18628 of 2013 to consider the case of petitioner.
10. In Second Petition petitioner has challenged an order whereby a huge recovery is determined on basis of a detailed inquiry as the petitioner was failed to submit details of expenditure. Copy of a Five Members Inquiry Committees report is on record and there is chart mentioned therein about the details and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:
क्र.सं.
फण्ड का प्रकार
आडिट रिपोर्ट में
अंकित देयता की
धनराशि
संस्था द्वारा अवलोकित
कराये गये बिल बाउचर
की धनराशि
उपलब्ध बिल
बाउचर घटाने के बाद अवशेष धनराशि
1-
विकास कोष
4,85,208.50
1,55,981.00
3,29,227.50
2-
किराया कोष
14,16,542.00
2,66,714.00
11,49,828.00
3-
कम्प्यूटर कोष
14,23,800.00
-
14,23,800.00
4-
शिक्षक
अभिभावक कोष
26,63,377.00
-
26,63,377.00
5-
प्रवेश परीक्षा
3,37,500.00
-
3,37,500.00
6-
पेडों के कटान से सम्बन्धित धनराशि
4,00,000.00
-
4,00,000.00
7-
छात्र निधियां
10,34,362.00
-
10,34,362.00
कुल योग
77,60,789.50
4,22,695.00
73,38,094.50
11. From above, it is absolutely clear that petitioner has not submitted vouchers or submitted insufficient vouchers and no explanation was submitted about not submitting the vouchers, therefore, there is no error in the audit report and recovery amount.
12. Now the Court deals with legal issue, whether such inquiry and order of recovery could be passed or not after petitioner got retired.
13. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others (1999)3 SCC 666 and Dev Prakash Tewari vs. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others (2014)7 SCC 260 as well as this Courts judgments in Ravindra Singh Rathore vs. District Inspector of Schools, Etawah and others, 2004(1) AWC 310; Iliyas Ali vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012:AHC-LKO:14488; Raj Kumar Bhadoriya vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022:AHC:96407; and, Committee of Management Jai Jawan Kishan Inter College vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019:AHC:139922 that since there is no provision to conduct any disciplinary proceeding or to pass order such as impugned order, after retirement, therefore, the proceedings itself are void ab initio.
14. Per contra, Sri D.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri Uttam Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent-6, have submitted that proceedings were initiated on basis of audit report of the year 2012, however, immediately no further action was taken and subsequently the proceedings were initiated and after hearing the stand of petitioner since he was failed to submit any reply and also failed to submit all the vouchers, order or recovery was passed. Petitioner has not submitted any explanation or documents alongwith this writ petition that details mentioned in above referred chart are factually incorrect. Since the proceedings were already initiated in the year 2012 and petitioner got subsequently retired in 2017, there is no bar to conclude inquiry which was initiated earlier, even after the retirement.
15. It may be a case that there is no specific provision in Act, 1921 to continue with inquiry even it was commenced before retirement against any delinquent. However, in the present case it is not a simple inquiry or recovery of any payment made in excess but it is an inquiry where petitioner was duty bound to submit details of payment by way of vouchers but failed to submit even before he got retired and during inquiry also. Therefore, in terms of above referred chart order of recovery was passed. Inquiry was undisputedly initiated before retirement of petitioner on basis of an audit report of the year 2012.
16. An employee on default cannot go scotfree when it appears that petitioner has tried his best that respondents may not proceed on basis of objections made in audit report for many years since petitioner was working on the post of Principal. Therefore, the Court is of the view that even there is no specific provision under Act, 1921 but the circumstances do warrant that some action be taken against petitioner since liability is huge, i.e., more than Rs. 73 lacs.
17. There is a further reason not to interfere in present writ petition that even in writ petition petitioner has not come with a case that he has submitted entire vouchers or figures mentioned in aforesaid chart were absolutely perverse.
18. The Court also takes note of Article 351 of Civil Service Regulations though strictly may not be applicable in the present case, still since it has been interpreted by this Court and Supreme Court in various cases that inquiry can be conducted even after retirement, if initiated within four years of retirement and if charges are serious, which the case in hand. Therefore, also I do not find any illegality in impugned orders.
19. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
November 26, 2025
AK
