Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Surendra Pratap Singh

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023/1185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the State challenged an ordersquashing a recovery order that deducted sums from the respondent's pension. The petition was dismissed, the court dismissing the respondent's claim against the recovery order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; recovery order quashed.

What the court decided

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

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1185 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation And Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And Another Respondent :- Surendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Ajey Shanker Tewari

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner- State of U.P. has challenged the judgment and order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “ the Tribunal ”), allowing the Claim Petition No.1164 of 2020, which was filed by the respondent challenging the punishment order dated 30.06.2020, whereby Rs.10,94,100/- was ordered to be deducted from the pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits payable to the respondent.

¶7

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 04.05.1979 and he retired from the post of Soil Conservation Officer, Shahjahanpur after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2017. On 29.12.2015, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on the charge of spending Rs.10,94,100/- in excess of the sanctioned budget for the financial year 2009-10 and for making irregular payments after getting

¶8

additional works conducted and for not depositing the farmer’s share amounting to Rs.4,89,043/-. The respondent submitted a reply to the charge sheet dated 05.03.2016, denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report holding the respondent guilty of charge no.1 and charge no.2 was not found to be proved. On 12.06.2017, a show cause notice was sent to the respondent, to which he submitted his reply on 08.07.2017. The proceedings were kept pending till after his retirement on 31.10.2017 and thereafter on 18.12.2017, the enquiry was ordered to continue under Rule 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations and on 30.06.2020, the order for recovery of Rs.10,94,000/- was passed.

¶9

The Tribunal held that the Enquiry Officer has concluded in respect of charge no.1 that no financial embezzlement or misuse of the construction material has come to light in the matter and it was found that the respondent had created a responsibility worth Rs.10,94,100/- ignoring the orders of the superior Officers.

¶10

The Tribunal held that Rule 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations gives Government a right to make recovery from pension of an Officer on account of loses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to by the embezzlement or fraud by such Officer during his service period. As the Enquiry Officer has himself held that the respondent has not committed any financial embezzlement or misuse of the construction material and he was held guilty of ignoring the direction of the

¶11

superior Officers, there was finding of any loss having been caused to the Government by ignorance or fraud of the respondent in these circumstances.

¶12

In his explanation submitted before the Enquiry Officer the respondent had stated that he had not created any additional liability and he had instructed the employees not to create any liability. As the unit was being dissolved, the remaining material was unnecessarily required to be utilized as otherwise the construction material would have gone waste. The Sub-ordinate employees got the works done without his permission and progress report of the work was repeatedly sent to the higher level.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find that the respondent was guilty and was liable to be punished.

¶14

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Arnima

¶17

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Surendra Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another v. Surendra Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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