K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) Aditya Narain Misra, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of the State Government dated 31st March, 1970.
(2.) Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was holding the post of Soil Survey Officer in the Senior scale of U.P. Agricultural Service Class 1, and was posted in the Soil Conservation Section of the Directorate of Agriculture at Lucknow. A charge-sheet containing six different charges of corruption and flagrant violation of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956, was served upon him on 16th November, 1968. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges denying the same. The State Government entrusted the enquiry against the petitioner to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. Evidence was recorded and hearing concluded before the Administrative Tribunal but before it could submit its report to the State Government, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 1st August, 1969. Conseauently the petitioner ceased to be in Government service with effect from that date. The Tribunal, however, submitted its report to the State Government on 2nd August, 1969. In its report the Tribunal held that the petitioner signed false certificates of the sums amounting to Rs. 8470/- towards cost of fabrication and mounting of an all steel Estate Car type bodies on two new jeeps. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner's integrity was not suspected in respect of the verification of the bills but he was guilty of not following the instructions of the Government correctly. The Tribunal proposed an adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll in respect of that charge. The Tribunal held that charges Nos. 2 and 3 were established against the petitioner for misappropriating 2 P. M. Meters and four ceiling fans, as a result of which the Government was out to loss of Rs. 6810-30 Paise. The Tribunal recommended that half of the value of the loss i. e. Rs. 3405/- should be recovered from the petitioner. The Tribunal further recommended awarding of adverse entry in the petitioner's character roll in respect of other remaining charges. In exercise of the powers under Rule 9 (2) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, the Tribunal further recommended imposition of punishment of reduction in petitioner's pension by Rs. 20/- per mensem in addition to the recovery of Rs. 3405/- for making good the loss suffered by the Government on account of the misappropriation of fans and meters. The State Government agreed with the finding of the Tribunal and accepted its recommendations, hence it passed the impugned order dated 31-3-1970 awarding adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner and further for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3405/-from the petitioner and for the reduction of petitioner's pension by Rs. 20/- per month.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order of the State Government was passed on 31st March. 1970. i.e. after about seven months of the petitioner's retirement from Government service at a time when the petitioner had ceased to be in service, hence the State Government could not pass any order of punishment against the petitioner. In the present case the facts are not disputed. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from Government service on 1st August, 1969, on attaining the age of 58 years, no order was passed by the State Government retaining the petitioner in service for the purpose of completion of departmental proceedings. It is further admitted that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner nor the copy of the report and finding recorded by the Tribunal was given to the petitioner prior to the issue of the impugned orders. It is true that departmental proceedings can be taken and punishment can be awarded against a Government servant but no order of punishment can legally be passed against a Government servant after he ceases to be in Government service. Under Fundamental Rule 56 the State Government is empowered to retain the services of a Government servant for the purpose of completing departmental enquiry and awarding punishment to him under certain conditions. If an order is passed by the State Government retaining a Government servant in service, then he continues to be in Government service and is liable to punishment in the departmental enquiry but if no such order is passed and the Government servant against whom departmental enquiry is proceeding is permitted to retire, the State Government ceases to have any power to pass any order of punishment against that Government servant. The principle is well settled as would be clear from the cases of State of Assam v. Padma Ram Borah (AIR 1965 SC 473) and State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (AIR 1970 SC 214). In the present case admittedly no order was passed by the State Government retaining the petitioner in Government service, instead the petitioner was permitted to retire on 1st August, 1969. The State Government could not pass any order of punishment against the petitioner as he ceased to be in Government service with effect from the date of his retirement. I, therefore, hold that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner.;