Recently, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued to a retired Technical Junior Engineer of Farrukhabad. The petitioner had sought quashing of the notice and proceedings initiated against him post-retirement, relating to alleged irregularities during his tenure. The Court observed that superannuation does not confer immunity from accountability and emphasized that a writ against a show cause notice is generally not maintainable.
The petitioner retired from the post of Technical Junior Engineer, Regulated Area, Farrukhabad. Prior to his retirement, a complaint was filed alleging irregularities in the petitioner’s official duties from 2015 to 2022. The District Magistrate constituted a Three-Member Committee to investigate, which submitted its report highlighting several alleged lapses. Subsequently, the petitioner received a show cause notice seeking his response to the findings, prompting him to challenge the notice in the High Court after retirement.
Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that, the petitioner’s employer-employee relationship had ended on retirement, (ii) no complaint could be entertained for work done during his service period, Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations did not apply, and (iv) the complaint was politically motivated, having been filed by the brother-in-law of a sitting MLA.
The Court noted that superannuation does not provide absolute independence from scrutiny of service-related irregularities. It held, "Government servants owe a high standard of responsibility. Though rules prescribe procedures for retired employees, no immunity is granted, and public grievances regarding official duties can be investigated."
The Court rejected the argument that the complaint was politically motivated, emphasizing that public representatives often relay genuine grievances, and their relatives filing complaints does not negate their validity. It further clarified the applicability of Regulation 351-A, stating that proceedings could be initiated against retired officials for events within four years prior to the institution of proceedings.
Regarding the writ against the show cause notice, the Court highlighted settled law, referencing Apex Court precedents, noting, "A writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not maintainable as no legal injury or prejudice is caused at this stage."
The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to cooperate by submitting his reply. The Court emphasized that the respondent authorities must adhere to applicable rules while taking the petitioner’s retired status into account. No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Vipin Chandra Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Writ - A No. - 16890 of 2025
Coram: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Lavkush Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi
Advocate for Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
