Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) The contention of the petitioner is, that after he had retired from the post of an Assistant Engineer in U.P. Provincial Division, U.P.P.W.D., Hathras ( Mahamaya Nagar) on 30.11.2006, he was served with a charge sheet on 27.2.2007 which related to the financial year 1998-99, and thus, the disciplinary enquiry did not conform to the mandatory provisions of Regulation 351 A of the Civil Service Regulations which provides that if a public servant who had retired shall not be proceeded against by the department in respect of any event which took place more than four years before the institution of the proceedings if the proceedings were not instituted while the petitioner was in service. For this purpose the petitioner has also relied (2) on a Government Order dated 17.01.2001.
(2.) In reply , the learned Standing Counsel argued that, in fact, the proceedings were initiated while the petitioner was in service. He argued that by the order 12.07.2006 an enquiry officer was appointed. The learned Standing Counsel further argued that the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were known to the respondents only when another Executive Engineer in the Department was proceeded against by means of a charge sheet dated 12.04.2006 meaning thereby that the prohibition in the Regulations 351 A and the Government order dated 17.1.2001 would not come into play.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the view that since the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2006, no disciplinary proceedings could be initiated of an event which had occurred four years prior (3) to the institution of the departmental proceedings. Regulation 351 A of the Civil Service Regulations is being reproduced here as under:-. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing 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 pecuniary loss caused 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. Provided that - (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment? 1. shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. 2. shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and 3. shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause(a); and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before (4) final orders are passed. Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, ( Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission. Explanation - For the purposes of this article - (a) Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from and earlier date, on such date; and (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted: I. in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which complaint in made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and II. in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made to a Civil Court. Note - As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned.;