- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri K. K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders dated 10-10- 2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur holding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct causing loss to the Government and therefore, reducing his family pension to 40%, and dated 22-11-2002 whereby the order dated 10-10-2002 has been partly modified by substituting the word "family pension" to "pension". The brief undisputed facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Amin on 19-10-1970 and was posted in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jhansi wherefrom he was transferred to Lalitpur on 22-4-1984. On 19-10- 1987 he was placed under suspension, a charge-sheet was issued and after holding inquiry he was reinstated with the punishment of reduction of 10% of salary during the period of suspension. Thereafter vide order dated 19-6-1991 his annual increment for the year 1991 was withheld with this cumulative effect and his representation against the aforesaid punishment was rejected on 31-3-1998. Thereafter he was allowed to cross efficiency bar by order dated 24-4-1999 w. e. f. 1-1-1992. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 29-2-2000 and retired on the said date. After retirement a charge-sheet was issued on 11-5-2000 under Article 470 (b) of Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "csr") containing charges of causing loss to the Government Revenue, doubtful integrity and misappropriation. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 5-6-2000 whereafter Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Lalitput was appointed as Inquiry Officer who conducted an oral inquiry and submitted his report dated 28-8-2002 holding charges proved against him. The appointing authority i. e. the Collector, Lalitpur thereafter passed punishment order dated 10- 10-2002 reducing family pension of the petitioner by 40% which order was modified by subsequent order dated 22-11-2002 and instead of "family pension" it was made "pension". The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that after retirement, inquiry proceedings could not have been held except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Article 351-A of CSR and since the charges relates to four years prior to the date of retirement and no sanction was obtained from the Hon'ble Governor, hence, the entire proceedings as well as the impugned orders are vitiated of law.
(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel however, disputing the contention submitted that Article 351-A of CSR has no application in this case since proceedings were initiated under Article 470 (b) of CSR which requires only approval of the appointing authority and no approval of Governor is needed thereunder, therefore, the entire proceedings are in accordance with law and the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. In the light of the rival submissions the only question required to be answered in this case is whether the proceedings in question were rightly initiated under Article 470 (b) of CSR and whether Article 351-A of CSR has any application or not.;