Jeevan Pal Arya vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the impugned order dated 30.04.2019, passed by the Director, Youth Welfare and Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner without holding any departmental inquiry, and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2015; a charge sheet was issued to him on 08.02.2019; and, on his submitting his reply thereto, the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 was passed directing the recovery of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is no doubt true that, in terms of Rule 3 of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 2003, recovery from pay, of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by the negligence or breach of orders is a minor penalty. It would suffice, for imposition of a minor penalty, for a charge sheet to be issued, for the delinquent employee to be given an opportunity of submitting his reply thereto and for an order to be passed thereafter, without the need to conduct a disciplinary inquiry.

The question which necessitates examination in this writ petition is whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired government servant nearly four years after his retirement, for an incident which allegedly took place six years prior thereto.

As noted herein above, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 08.02.2019, for an incident which, Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, relates to the year 2013. Rule 351(A) of the Civil Service Regulation stipulates that the Government can recover, from the pension of an officer, any amount on account of loss caused to the Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service, provided that such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer is on duty either before his retirement or during re-employment --(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (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. In terms of proviso (a)(ii), departmental proceedings can only be instituted against a retired government servant in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.

In the present case, proceedings were instituted by issuance of the charge sheet dated 08.02.2019. It is only if the incident, for which the charge sheet was issued, relates a period on or after 08.02.2015 can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the retired government servant. While charge No.1 appears to relates to year 2013, it is not clear whether charge No.2 also relates to the said period. This question ought to have been examined by the competent authority, who passed the impugned order, in the first instance, for, if the departmental proceedings have been instituted after the retirement of a government servant, in respect of an incident which took place more than four years prior to his retirement, it would result in violation of Rule 351 A of the Civil Service Regulations.

As this aspect has not been examined by the second respondent while passing the impugned order, suffice it to set aside the impugned order, direct the second respondent to examine whether charge sheet, issued to the petitioner on 08.02.2019, satisfied the requirement of Rule 351A of the Civil Service Regulations; and, only if it does not, to take necessary action in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.