- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respon dents.
(2.) BY the present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 3-10-88 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) awarding punishment of reduc tion of pension by 5% and directing that for the suspension period he was not entitled to salary and allowance except subsistence al lowance already paid to him. Petitioner was posted as District Panchayat Officer in Deoria and vide order dated 3-2-1984 he was transferred from Deoria to Ballia. His claim is that the trans fer was stayed by the State Government vide order dated 9-2-84 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). He was, however, suspended by Deputy Director Administration Panchayat Raj, Deoria vide order dated 2-5-84. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 14410 of 1984 in this Court and this Court vide order dated 28-11-1984 stayed the order of suspension dated 2-5-84 and order appoint ing the enquiry Officer dated 4-5-84. The petitioner retired on 30-11-84 from the said post. However, a charge-sheet was framed against him on 8-11-84 which was served upon him on 19-7-85 and the enquiry was concluded by the impugned order dated 3rd October, 1988. It is further stated that the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Dis trict Panchayat Raj Officer by an order dated 31-3-87 passed by the Director Panchayat Raj U. P. with effect from 1-4-84 as he was approved for confirmation by the Public Service Commission on 2-6-86. The impunged order is challenged mainly on the ground that all the charges against the petitioner related to the date prior to his confirmation, although the en quiry was completed subsequent to the date of the confirmation yet in view of the doctrine of condonation and doctrine of washing off the acts of misconduct, if any, prior to the date of confirmation could not have been made a ground for substantiating the charges and holding the petitioner guilty of such charges.
(3.) THE fact as stated above, are not very much disputed except that the charge-sheet dated 9-11-84 was served upon the petitioner earlier than 19-7-85. The short question raised in this petition is whether in the circumstances stated above the doctrine of washing off would apply or not. It is well settled prin ciple of service jurisprudence that no per son can be indicted for acts of omission or commission amounting to misconduct if after the date of omission or commission of such acts he had been promoted or confirmed. It would he deemed that such lapses on the part of the Government servant were considered at the time of his promotion, confirmation or crossing of the efficiency bar as the case may he and in case a decision is taken in his favour the lapses prior to the date of that decision were condoned and consequently, all the adverse entries/acts of omission or commission should stood washed off. This doctrine of condonation or washing off has been reiterated in a number of judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as of this Court.;