MALIK ZAFAR LARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was in the service of the State Government. He retired from service on 31.1.2007 from the post of Sub Division Agriculture Extension Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been paid his post retiral benefits despite he having approached the respondent authorities time and again. This writ petition has thus been filed with the prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide post retiral benefit to the petitioner within such period as may be fixed by this Court. We have heard Sri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have perused the record.

(2.) Although no order withholding the post retiral benefits of the petitioner has been passed but in the counter-affidavit the reason given for withholding the same is that by a Government Order dated 28.3.2005 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for having committed certain financial irregularities while he was posted as Soil Conservation Officer, Mirzapur in the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000, in which, it is alleged that certain excess payments were paid to the labourers. Admittedly no charge-sheet was ever issued to the petitioner during his service period. Specific averment to this effect has been made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in June, 2007. The same has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 28.3.2005 was a sanction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. In the said letter itself, it was mentioned that the enquiry officer shall prepare the charge-sheet and place the same before the Government for necessary sanction. It is the specific case of the petitioner, which has not been denied by the respondents, that the petitioner was neither given a charge-sheet during his service period nor was ever placed under suspension. It is thus contended that disciplinary proceedings, in the form of issuance of charge-sheet, after the retirement of the petitioner could not be initiated without the sanction of the Governor as provided under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Rakhan Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 1 ADJ 677, has held that where the charge-sheet is served subsequent to the retirement of the employee without there being any order of the Governor permitting the initiation of the departmental proceeding against the employee, the same would be barred under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations. Another Division Bench in the case of Lal Sharan v. State of U.P., 2012 1 ESC 57 has held that mere intention to obtain sanction for initiating disciplinary enquiry could not be made basis for withholding post retiral benefits unless sanction is granted and the disciplinary proceeding starts. It has further been held that the authorities cannot withhold pension and other retiral dues of a retired employee merely on the ground that there was a possibility of an enquiry being initiated against a retired employee. The provision of seeking sanction from the Governor in the case of a retired employee has been made to safeguard the interest of the retired employees who could be harassed after retirement.