Allahabad: Single-Judge Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh was of the view that though the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated after sanction from the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, the chargesheet was filed after four years of his retirement.
The Court noted that the same is against the Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, which provides that the Governor can grant sanction for initiation of departmental proceedings only for the event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.
The Court was hearing a petition moved by a retired employee challenging the November 18, 2021 order of the Uttar Pradesh Secretary, Public Works Department, which had directed deduction of 5 percent of the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years after conclusion of the departmental proceedings against him.
The petitioner had retired on December 31, 2011 from the post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department. Prior to this, he was posted in the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited from the year 2006 to 2011.
In January 2016, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet wherein it was alleged that during his posting in the Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited from the year 2006 to 2011, the petitioner had committed several irregularities and, therefore, huge loss was caused to the government exchequer.
By an order of November 18, 2021, the secretary of the department directed that after the conclusion of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, 5 percent shall be deducted from his pension.
Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the present petition before the High Court.
The Court noted that Regulation 351A of the Civil Services Regulations as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, prohibits initiation of the departmental proceedings against an employee after more than four years from the date of his retirement.
Accordingly, the Court was of the view that there is no point of initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner after four years of his retirement.
It, therefore, allowed the plea of the petitioner and has set aside the November 18, 2021 order passed by the secretary of the department.