- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 30th September, 2000 passed by respondent No. 1 imposing punishment of deduction of pension by 20% in exercise of power under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulation (hereinafter referred to as CSR) the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order and has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the entire pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18%.
(2.) THE facts in brief, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Naib- Tahsildar and promoted to the post of Tahsildar and Deputy Collector wherefrom he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30-6-1997. Just a few months earlier to the date of retirement the petitioner received a charge-sheet dated 20th December, 1996 which contained four charges with respect to alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while working as Land Acquisition Officer between 1994-95. THE Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut was appointed Enquiry Officer under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1930 as applicable in U. P. (hereinafter referred to as CCA Rules, 1930 ). THE petitioner vide letter dated 24th January, 1997 requested that he may be supplied the documents relied in support of charges so that he may submit his reply. Reminders also sent on 18th February, 1997 and 28th June, 1999. THE petitioner was informed that documents pertaining to charges No. 2, 3 and 4 are lying in the Vigilance Department and hence could not be made available for inspection but some documents pertaining to charge No. 1 were made available which were inspected by him. THEreafter he submitted reply on 16th October, 1998 with respect to charge No. 1 only. It appears that documents pertaining to charges No. 2, 3 and 4 were not made available to the Enquiry Officer as well. THE Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut i. e. the Enquiry Officer after receiving petitioner's reply dated 16th October, 1998 submitted his report dated 2nd August, 1999 confining his findings to charge No. 1 only and held that charge No. 1 was established against the petitioner. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith show-cause notice dated 17th August, 1999 where against he submitted reply dated 8th October, 1999. Respondent No. 1 ultimately passed impugned order of punishment dated 30th September, 2000 imposing punishment of deduction of pension by 20% since the petitioner in the meantime had attained the age of superannuation and therefore various other punishments as provided under Rule 49 of CCA Rules, 1930 could not have been imposed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of punishment mainly on two grounds : (1) After retirement of the petitioner on 30th June, 1997 enquiry proceedings could not have been continued unless sanction of the Governor is obtained and therefore the entire proceedings are void ab initio. (2) Before submitting enquiry report it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to conduct oral enquiry in the manner proceedings are conducted where punishment of dismissal could have been imposed upon a Government servant but no such procedure has been adopted by the Enquiry Officer, no oral enquiry was conducted and on the contrary Enquiry Officer proceeded as if charges once levelled stood proved unless disproved by the delinquent employee. The procedure thus being contrary to Rule 55 of CCA Rules, 1930, it vitiates the entire proceedings including the order of punishment. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the Enquiry Officer gave full opportunity of defence to the petitioner. Furthermore the petitioner was also given opportunity by the State Government before passing the impugned order of punishment and if there was any possible defence available to the petitioner, it was always open to him to bring such facts to the notice of the State Government. Since the petitioner has made illegal appointments and that was the allegation in charge No. 1 which has been found true, the punishment has rightly been imposed upon him and it is neither inconsistent with law nor the allegation that there is violation of Article 351 of CSR is incorrect.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court the State Government also produced original record pertaining to enquiry which has been conducted against the petitioner and the Court has also perused the same. The first question is whether impugned order is vitiated in law since proceedings continued after retirement of the petitioner without any sanction of Governor. In order to answer the said question it would be necessary to find out whether sanction of Governor for continuance of disciplinary proceedings in the case in had was at all necessary. The entire submission of the petitioner is based on Article 351-A which reads as under : " (351-A) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary 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 : Provided that - (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment - (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and (iii) 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) (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, U. P. , shall be consulted before final orders are passed. ";