The Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition observed that the matter relates to the event which took place four years prior to the retirement of the petitioner, so no action can be taken against the petitioner and inquiry cannot be initiated.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Rajendra Dhar Dwivedi.
The petition has been preferred for issuing a direction to the respondents to release the post retiral benefits of the petitioner i.e an amount of Rs 20 lacs towards Gratuity, Rs 33 lacs approximately towards commutation of Pension and further pay regular pension to the petitioner with interest in the petition as no order has been passed either by the Governor or the State Government.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation had retired from the post of Director (Agriculture) on 31.10.2019 but in place of making payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 04.09.2021 under Rule 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999 (hereinafter referred to as, the Rules, 1999) for minor punishment.
The said notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition which was allowed in part by the Court vide its order dated 02.12.2020 and quashed the notice under challenge.
It is further contended that after the said judgment, an another notice dated 23.02.2021 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Agriculture) to the petitioner for the same charges as mentioned in the earlier notice issued under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules 1999, mentioning therein that the Show-Cause notice dated 04.09.2021 has now been converted into notice Under Regulation 351 (A) of the Civil Services Regulation (CSR).
The said notice was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition, which was partly allowed by the Court vide its order dated 22.06.2021.
It is further submitted that the judgment was passed on 22.06.2021 and now more than two and a half years have passed but till date no order has been passed by the Governor while exercising its power under Regulation 351 A of C.S.R and depriving the petitioner of his lawful claims of post retiral benefits which is neither a charity or a bounty as per the law settled in the case of R Sundaram Vs Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee (2023) SCC OnLine SC 287.
It is further submitted that in the show cause notice dated 04.09.2020 issued under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, 1999 and the Show Cause notice dated 23.02.2021 (both are quashed by the Court, as mentioned above), the allegation or the explanation which were sought from the petitioner related to the period of four years prior to the retirement of the petitioner and as per Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R, no inquiry can be initiated against the petitioner for the charges which relate to for the period of four years of retirement.
On the other hand, the Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received has submitted that the legal opinion has been taken and the matter is under consideration but unable to dispute that the charges which were alleged in the earlier two show cause notices were related to the period four years before retirement of the petitioner.
After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that the petitioner has retired on 31.10.2019 and as on today, there is no inquiry pending against the petitioner. Earlier two proceedings i.e first Show Cause notice dated 04.09.2020 issued under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, 1999 and thereafter a second Show Cause notice dated 23.02.2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Agriculture) converting the earlier show cause notice issued under Rule 10 (2) of the Rules, 1999 to Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R had already quashed by the Court.
The Court noted that,
The Court vide its order dated 22.06.2021 had granted liberty to proceed under Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R but more than two and a half years have passed but the department has not forwarded the complete file to the Governor to pass an order under Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R, as informed by counsel for the respondent no 2- Additional Chief Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Lucknow and it has also informed that no order under Regulation 351 (A) of C.S.R has been passed so far.
Under these circumstances as mentioned above, next it may be examined whether Regulation 351-A of C.S.R is attracted or not for that the necessary questions which may require attention of the Court are as follows:- firstly, any order has been passed by the competent authority under Regulation 351-A of C.S.R or not; secondly, and most importantly whether Regulation 351-A is applied to the present case or not; and thirdly, as to whether there is any impediment existing in payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner.
The questions framed above are being dealt with as below: Firstly, it may be seen whether any order has been passed under Regulation 351-A and it is to be found that so far, no such order has been passed as would be clear from submission made by the counsel for the respondent no. 2-Additional Chief Secretary, Governor Secretariat.
The Court observed that,
Counsel for the respondent no 2 informed the Court on the basis of his instructions that the complete file was never made available by the department to the office of Governor so till date no order under Regulation 351 A has been passed against the petitioner.
It is thus clear that since matter relates to the event which took place four years prior to the retirement of the petitioner which is an undisputed fact as accepted by Counsel for respondents, so no action can be taken against the petitioner and inquiry cannot be initiated hence, there is no occasion to consider the matter relating to grant of any approval under Regulation 351-A of C.S.R. And lastly, it is found that there exists no impediment in making the payment of post retiral benefits to the petitioner.
After retirement, an employee is dependent upon his/her post retiral dues but in place of getting the same the petitioner had been compelled by the arbitrary action of the respondents to approach the Court time and again. In place of getting any dues the petitioner is spending the cost of litigation from his life long savings. The petitioner has been deprived from getting his lawful claim due to wrong actions, inaction and non action by the authorities at different stages which is causing the petitioner to suffer great hardship.
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Court allowed the petition.
“Respondent no 1 is directed to make payment of all post retiral dues to the petitioner including computation of pension within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In case, the payment is not made in the period mentioned hereinabove, the respondents will be liable to pay the simple interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of retirement till actual payment is made”, the Court ordered.