Shivendra Kumar Sharma vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation and another

Alok Singh, J.

Petitioner was working as Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Circle, Kashipur and was retired on 30.11.2012. A checking was conducted for

electricity they by the Vigilance Unit of Uttarakhand Power Corporation on 26.05.2012 and on checking, it was found that in the factory namely M/s

Himalaya Paper Mill, Sarverkhera 40 mm cable was directly connected to the electricity pole of 25 KVA line. Petitioner was Junior Engineer of the

Sub Station where the said factory situated. Disciplinary inquiry was initiated. Inquiry officer was appointed and charge-sheet was issued to the

petitioner on 01.12.2012 i.e. after the date of retirement. Inquiry was concluded and punishment to the tune of stopping 25% of pension was imposed

vide order dated 7. 10.2014. Against the order dated 07.10.2014, petitioner preferred appeal unsuccessfully. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached

this Court challenging the order dated 07.10.2014 and order dated 13.07.2015 passed by Appellate Authority.

Heard Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondents and perused the record.

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner for the petitioner submits that as per Regulation 351 of the Civil Service Regulations, for initiating

a departmental inquiry against the petitioner after retirement, Governor’s permission is required. He further submits that respondents’

conducted inquiry as per provisions of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 1999 Rules) and awarded penalty,

which is not mentioned in the list of penalties. He further submits that during the course of inquiry petitioner sought certain documents but respondents

had neither provided the same nor assigned any reason for not giving the same.

Mr. B.S. Bisht, Advocate for the respondents submits that charge-sheet was issued one day prior to date of retirement and it was received by the

petitioner one day after the retirement. He further submits that as per Rule 3 of 1999 Rules recovery was imposed.

Rule of the 1999 Rules reads as under:

“3. Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon the Government servants

:

Minor Penalties:

(i) Censure;

(ii) Withholding of increments for a specified period;

(iii) Stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders;

(v) Fine in case of persons holding Group 'D' posts;

Provided that the amount of such fine shall in no case exceed twenty-five percent of the month's pay in which fine is imposed.

Major Penalties:

(i) Withholding of increments with cumulative effect;

(ii) Reduction to a lower post or grade or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(iii) Removal from the service which does not disqualify from future employment;

(iv) Dismissal from the service which disqualifies from future employment.

Explanation. - The following shall not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely :

(i) Withholding of increment of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental examination or for failure to fulfil any other condition in

accordance with the rules or orders governing tire service;

(ii) Stoppage at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on account of ones not being found fit to cross the efficiency bar;

(iii) Reversion of a person appointed on probation to the service during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of

appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation;

(iv) Termination of the service of a person appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of the

service or the rules and orders governing such probation.â€​

I find any force in the submissions of Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. If this is a case of minor penalty, then there is no need for

conducting any inquiry and if this is a case of major penalties, then there is no mention of recovery from pension. Even in the minor penalties, recovery

is mentioned from “pay†not from “pensionâ€. Respondents had neither supplied the documents sought by the petitioners nor granted

opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Even if it is assumed that inquiry was good, it transpires that no fair opportunity of hearing was granted to

the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are hereby set aside.