Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another v. Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023/1182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of U.P. challenged the Tribunal order allowing recovery from respondent's pension. The Court upheld the Tribunal decision, noting the enquiry was delayed beyond granted time without seeking extension and the Enquiry Committee found no revenue loss.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed maintaining the Tribunal order allowing recovery of Rs.8,47,501/- from the respondent's retiral benefits.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1182 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. And Another Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Ajey Shanker Tewari

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for petitioner-State and Shri Ajey Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

(2) By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner- State of U.P. has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 1261 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the Claim Petition filed by the respondent challenging the order of recovery of Rs.8,47,501/- from his retiral benefits like pension, gratuity, etc.

¶7

(3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that respondent was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on 18.07.1980. He was promoted to the post of Soil Conservation Officer and he retired from the aforesaid post after attaining age of superannuation on 30.04.2018. On 29.08.2013, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent containing 16 charges and the respondent submitted his reply on 27.09.2013. After conclusion of the enquiry, a show cause notice was sent to the respondent along with a copy of the enquiry report. On 06.11.2015, respondent submitted a reply to the show cause notice. On 25.10.2017, an order was passed punishing the respondent by

¶8

reverting him to the lowest post and ordering a recovery of sum of Rs.72,61,201/- from him.

¶9

(4) The respondent had challenged the punishment order dated 25.10.2017 by filing Claim Petition No.2025 of 2017 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition by means of judgment and order dated 05.07.2018, whereby the punishment order dated 25.10.2017 was quashed and a direction was issued to hold the enquiry afresh from the stage of issuance of a charge sheet and the Tribunal had granted maximum of four months period to conclude the enquiry.

¶10

(5) By means of a letter dated 15.03.2019, a fresh charge sheet dated 11.03.2019 was sent to the respondent containing 12 charges relating to the year 2012-13. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.06.2019 and the respondent filed a reply on 06.08.2019 wherein he stated that there was no loss of revenue to the Government and there was no grave mis-conduct on his part as is evident from the report of the Committee, comprising of the Deputy Director, Junior Engineer and the Accountant, which stated that no loss of revenue was caused in the matter. However, on 26.11.2020, the Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.8,47,501/- from the retiral dues of the respondent.

¶11

(6) The respondent challenged the punishment order by filing Claim Petition No.1261 of 2021 and he submitted that issuance of a fresh charge sheet was permissible only under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulation as the matter related to the year 2012-13 and the respondent had retired on 30.04.2018. Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulation provides that punishment can be imposed only for grave mis-conduct and loss of revenue caused to the Government and there was no loss of revenue caused to the Government by any act of the

¶12

respondent.

¶13

(7) The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition holding that by means of previous judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.2025 of 2017, an option was given to the Disciplinary Authority to hold an enquiry afresh and in case any enquiry is held, the same will have to be concluded within a maximum period of four months. A copy of the aforesaid judgment and order was served on the Authorities on 13.07.2018 and the enquiry ought to have been concluded by 12.11.2018, but for holding a fresh enquiry, the charge sheet was issued on 11.03.2019.

¶14

(8) The respondent had filed Writ Petition No.4831 (S/S) of 2020 before this Court challenging the charge sheet dated 11.03.2019 and this Court had disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petition by means of judgment and order dated 20.02.2020 directing the Principal Secretary, Irrigation & Water Resources Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow to take a final decision in the matter within four weeks, however, the enquiry was concluded neither within the time limit prescribed by the Tribunal nor within the time limit granted by this Court.

¶15

(9) The Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition on the grounds that the enquiry was not concluded within time granted by the Tribunal and by this Court and also that the Enquiry Committee headed by the Deputy Director had found that no loss of revenue was caused to the Government by any act of the respondent.

¶16

(10) We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the record. Undisputedly, the enquiry was not concluded within the time granted by the Tribunal and also it was not concluded even within the extended time granted

¶17

by this Court and no application seeking any further extension of time, for completing the enquiry proceedings, was filed.

¶18

(11) The Tribunal has relied upon a Full Bench decision in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi s/o Sri Ram Shanker Awasthi vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others ; (2014) 6 ALJ 662 FB , in which the following two questions were placed for being answered by the Full Bench,

¶19

"(a) Whether if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame fixed by a court and concluded thereafter, without seeking extension from the Court then on the said ground the entire inquiry proceeding as well as punishment order passed, is vitiated in view of the judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava; and

¶20

(b) Whether the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava that if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame as fixed by a Court, it stands vitiated is still a good law in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra as well as a judgment dated 27.07.2009 of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1056 (SB) of 2009 (Union of India and others Vs. Satendra Kumar Sahai and another)."

¶21

(12) The Full Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows:-

¶22

"(A) Question No. (a): We hold that if an enquiry is not concluded within the time which has been fixed by the Court, it is open to the employer to seek an extension of time by making an appropriate application to the court setting out the reasons for the delay in the conclusion of the enquiry. In such an event, it is for the court to consider whether time should be extended, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, where there is a stipulation of time by the Court, it will not be open to the employer to disregard that stipulation and an extension of time must be sought;

¶23

(B) Question No. (b): The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satyendra Kumar Sahai (supra) clearly indicate that a mere delay on the part of the employer in concluding a disciplinary enquiry will not ipso facto nullify the entire proceedings in every case. The court

¶24

which has fixed a stipulation of time has jurisdiction to extend the time and it is open to the court, while exercising that jurisdiction, to consider whether the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The court can suitably extend time for conclusion of the enquiry either in a proceeding instituted by the employee challenging the enquiry on the ground that it was not completed within the stipulated period or even upon an independent application moved by the employer. The court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an extension of time, the original stipulation of time having been fixed by the court itself. Such an extension of time has to be considered in the interests of justice balancing both the need for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry in the interests of fairness and an honest administration. In an appropriate case, it would be open to the Court to extend time suo motu in order to ensure that a serious charge of misconduct does not go unpunished leading to a serious detriment to the public interest. The court has sufficient powers to grant an extension of time both before and after the period stipulated by the court has come to an end."

¶25

(13) Although the petitioner had not sought extension of time granted by the Tribunal by means of the order dated 05.07.2018 passed in Claim Petition No.2025 of 2017, this Court had extended the time for four weeks by means of judgment and order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.4831 (S/S) of 2020. Still, the proceedings were not concluded within the extended time granted by this Court and the petitioner chose not to seek any further extension of time granted for concluding the disciplinary enquiry. In these circumstances, in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra) , it was not open to the petitioner to disregard the stipulation of time.

¶26

(14) In view of the aforesaid fact, coupled with the fact that the Enquiry Committee headed by the Deputy Director had found that no loss of revenue was caused to the Government by any act of the respondent, we are of the view that the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal does not suffer from any error or any illegality

¶27

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

(15) The Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶30

Order Date :- 8.2.2023/Arnima

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another v. Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another v. Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Ors.

Rahul Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Hare Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 9 Others

Kumari Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.Throu.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Lko.and Ors.

State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Public Works Deptt.Lucknow Vs Mohd.Zaki Siddiqui and Anr.

Raman Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Others