G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) The respondent Jagannath Prasad Varshney was an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the U. P. Government. By a notice dated October 19, 1968 he was compulsorily retired with effect from January 20, 1969. He was served with a show cause notice dated October 21, 1970 enclosing a charge sheet levelling several charges of misconduct against him. He was required to file his written statement on or before November 23, 1970. Admittedly the show cause notice was issued under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations as in force in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the show cause notice mainly on the ground that the charges related to a period of more than 4 years before the service of the show cause notice and that no action could be taken on these charges. The Government apparently accepted this position and withdrew the show cause notice. Thereafter another show cause notice dated January 6, 1973, was served upon the respondent under Article 470(b) of the Regulations asking him to show cause why a deduction of 30 percent should not be made from his pension. The show cause notice recited the same charges of misconduct against the respondent as were recited in the earlier show cause notice under Article 351-A. Thereupon the respondent got his writ petition amended and challenged the subsequent show cause notice. Gulati, J who heard the writ petition was of the opinion that the scope of Articles 351-A and 470 was different and mutually exclusive that a case which was governed by the provisions of Article 351-A could not fall, within the ambit of Article 470 and that the present case was governed by the provisions of Article 351-A and therefore a show cause notice under Article 470 was not competent. He accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice dated January 6, 1973. Against the judgment of Gulati, J. this special appeal has been filed by the State Government.
(2.) Having heard learned Standing Counsel we are in agreement with the view taken by Gulati, J. The relevant part of Article 351-A reads thus:- "351-A. The Government reserves to himself the right of with holding or with-drawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecunniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement ...." It is to be noticed that under this Article, Government is entitled to withhold or withdraw the entire pension or any part of the pension if the officer has been guilty of gross-misconduct or of misconduct or negligence which has caused loss to Government. Clause (ii) of Proviso (a) to this Article provides that proceedings under this Article shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before the institution of the proceedings. The relevant portion of Article 470 which relates to the award of full pension reads thus:- "470(a). The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper." Under this Article, the full pension may be reduced if the Government finds that the service of the officer has not been thoroughly satisfactory.' In our opinion, the expression 'not thoroughly satisfactory' under Article 470 must mean something other than what is meant by the expression' is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence' in Article 351-A. The two articles are not co-extensive and are not intended to operate in the same field. Where an employee can be deprived of a part of his pension under Article 351-A when certain charges are established against him then it is difficult to accept that identical action can be taken under Article 470 also on the establishment of the same charges. If on the very grounds on which action can be taken under Article 351-A action were permissible under Article 470 also then the bar of limitation in Article 351-A will become meaningless and futile as action could be taken even after the expiry of limitation under Article 470 for which there is no limitation. This clearly indicates that action under Article 470 can be taken only on grounds other than those set out in Article 351-A. In our opinion where it is proposed to deprive a person of the whole or any part of his pension on account of grave misconduct or misconduct or negligence causing pecuniary loss to Government, action can only be taken under Article 351-A and not under Article 470. Under Article 470, action can be taken only when the service is found thoroughly unsatisfactory for reasons other than those mentioned in Article 351-A.
(3.) In the present case the show cause notice under Article 351-A levelled charges against the respondent of grave misconduct and charges of misconduct and negligence causing pecuniary loss to the Government. The case was fully covered by Article 351-A, but on account of the fact that the proceedings were started after the period prescribed had expired, the notice had to be withdrawn. The show cause notice under Article 470 recites the very same charges of grave misconduct and misconduct and negligence causing pecuniary loss to Government. A notice under Article 470 cannot be founded on such charges. The learned Single Judge was, therefore right in holding that the notice under Article 470 was not a valid and legal notice.;