Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1280 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Pati Shukla,Mateen Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.

¶8

2.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing charge sheet dated 9.11.2020, Annexure-1 to the petition and entire disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents.

¶9

A further writ of mandamus directing respondents to make payment of retiral dues along with interest @ 10 per cent per annum till the date of actual payment has also been sought.

¶10

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired after completing age of superannuation on 30.9.2020. After his retirement, on 9.11.2020, charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner while initiating disciplinary proceedings without taking any approval as required under Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations.

¶11

He further submits that till pendency of the petition, the impugned charge sheet may be issued and provisional pension may be directed to

¶12

be paid to the petitioner.

¶13

4.A personal affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed by Principal Secretary, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department wherein, in para 9, it has been categorically stated that the provisional pension of the petitioner till the month of March, 2025 has been paid.

¶14

5.Learned Chief standing counsel on the basis of instructions could not demonstrate that any order or approval/permission has been granted by the Governor to proceed against the petitioner after retirement.

¶15

6.I have considered the submission(s).

¶16

7.Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations is extracted below :

¶17

" 351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a 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;

¶18

Provided that--

¶19

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment-

¶20

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor,

¶21

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding, and

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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) of clause (a); and

¶24

(c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final orders are passed.

¶25

Explanation--For the purposes of this article--

¶26

(a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the

¶27

charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from and earlier date, on such date; and

¶28

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted :

¶29

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and

¶30

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court"

¶31

The provision of first proviso appended to Regulation 351-A clearly prohibits institution of departmental proceedings except with the sanction of Governor if such proceedings were not instituted while the employee was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. Thus, Article 351-A puts a prohibition of initiating the departmental proceedings in a case of retired government servant, however, such proceedings are permissible to be instituted with the sanction of Governor, that too, in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceedings.

¶32

In the instant case, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.11.2020, i.e. post his retirement on completing the age of superannuation on 30.9.2020. Since the departmental proceedings were not instituted against the petitioner prior to his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, sanction under Article 351-A was required to be taken from the Governor, which in this case has not been done.

¶33

5.Thus, prima facie, the matter requires consideration.

¶34

6.Four weeks' time is allowed to file parawise

¶35

reply/counter affidavit to the writ petition, two weeks then for the rejoinder.

¶36

7.List on 9.7.2025. Till further orders of the court, the impugned proceedings initiated in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 9.11.2020 shall remain stayed.

¶37

The respondents are directed to keep on paying provisional pension to the petitioner as and when it falls due.

¶38

Order Date :- 29.4.2025 kkb/

¶39

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Mohd. Saddam Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivkant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ravindra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Meena Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.