CHANDRA BHUSHAN TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 9/9/2016 passed by the first respondent directing deduction of 10% of the pension for a period of five years in exercise of power under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. The petitioner has retired from the post of Supply Inspector on 31/7/2009. The challenge is two fold; first, on the ground that the charge against the petitioner relates to a period more than four years before the institution of the proceedings and thus in view of sub clause (ii) of clause (a) of the first proviso to Regulation 351-A, the proceedings could not have been initiated and second, that the charge levelled against him, even if found proved, does not amount to grave misconduct; consequently, it does not warrant recourse to power under Regulation 351-A.

(3.) The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 19/12/2011. It contains only one charge, i.e., while the petitioner was posted as Supply Inspector at development block Handia, District Allahabad, he failed to carry out monthly inspections of the shops of fair price dealers which amounts to infraction of the guidelines laid down in government order dtd. 20/12/2004. As a consequence, the petitioner could not come to know that Asman Singh son of a fair price shop dealer, Sukhraj Singh was elected as Village Pradhan during period 2005-06. The government order dtd. 18/7/2002 provides that in case any family member of fair price shop dealer is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, it would entail cancellation of license of the fair price shop. Since the petitioner failed to carry out monthly inspections, therefore, he could not come to know of the election of Asman Singh son of a fair price shop dealer as Pradhan of the village. Resultantly, no action could be taken against the fair price shop dealer for cancellation of allotment.