N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by Aditya Narain Misra respondent No. 1. The said respondent was employed as Soil Survey Officer in the senior scale of U. P. Agricultural Service Class I. On November 16, 1968 he was served with a charge sheet containing various charges of corruption and flagrant violation of the U. P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956. The charges were referred to the Administrative Tribunal for enquiry under the U. P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. The Tribunal afforded requisite opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1 on the various charges and submitted its report on August 2, 1969 to the State Government wherein it made various recommendations. A day before the report was submitted namely on August 1, 1969 the respondent No. 1 had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Accepting the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal which were inter alia, to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had signed false certificates of a sum amounting to Rs. 8,470/-, that he was guilty of not following the instructions of the Government and that he had misappropriated certain goods as a result of which the Government was put to a loss of Rs. 6,810.30 the State Government passed an order on March 31 1970 whereby it awarded adverse entry in the character roll of respondent No. 1 directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,405/- from the respondent No. 1 and for reduction of his pension by Rs. 20/- per month, This order of the State Government was challenged by the respondent No. 1 in a writ petition which was allowed mainly on three grounds: (1) that since the petitioner had retired having attained the age of super annulation before the impugned order had been passed the State Government had no authority to inflict any punishment upon him; (2) that the respondent No. 1 was not given any opportunity to show cause against the punishment with regard to the recovery of Rs. 3,405/- and reduction of his pension by Rs. 20/- per month; and (3) that the order in regard to the recovery of Rs. 3,405/- and reduction of Pension could not be supported on the authority of paragraphs 351-A and 470 of the Civil Service Regulations as they were sought to be supported by the Standing Counsel. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which has been challenged in the present appeal.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel has urged that the principle that no punishment could be awarded to a Government servant after he had retired was applicable only to such punishments which could be imposed only till the said Government servant continued to be a member of the service and as were enumerated in paragraph 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and that the order in regard to the recovery of Rs. 3,405/- from the respondent No. 1 and reduction of his pension by Rs. 20/- per month was not any such punishment but was an order which could be passed under paragraph 351-A of Civil Service Regulations even after the Government servant had retired. He further urged that since the aforesaid order was passed on the basis of the report submitted by the Administrative Tribunal which had given the respondent No. 1 full opportunity of hearing it was not necessary for the State Government to give any further opportunity of hearing.
(3.) Even on the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel the order of the State Government in so far as it awarded adverse entry in the character roll of the respondent No. 1 which amounts to censure could be had because it is one of the punishments mentioned in paragraph 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and this punishment could not be awarded after the respondent No. 1 had retired. Indeed the learned Standing Counsel very fairly conceded to this legal position and, therefore, the impugned order of the State Government in this behalf was liable to be quashed and has rightly been so quashed.;