The respondent was working as Block Development Officer when he was placed under suspension by the order dated 20.10.1997 and a charge sheet companytaining 12 charges was served upon him on 24.10.1997.
The enquiry officer submitted a report on 16.11.1999 that all the 12 charges levelled against the respondent were found to have been established.
The Tribunal has held that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent prior to his retirement by issuing a charge sheet but the same companyld number have companytinued after his retirement unless specific order for its companytinuance had been taken from the companypetent authority i.e. the Governor, as provided in Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations.
The Tribunal allowed the claim petition by the order dated 10.4.2002 and set aside the order passed by the State Government directing recovery of Rs.9,69,141.60 from the respondent.
The appellant State of U.P. filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal but the same was dismissed on 16.3.2004.
Thereafter, an order was passed by the State Government on 25.1.2001 directing recovery of Rs.9,69,141.60 from the pension gratuity of the respondent.
The High Court has accepted the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal and has observed as under This enquiry was thus, initiated few days before the date of retirement of the respondent number1.
The enquiry officer recorded a finding that all the charges were found to have been established against the respondent.
We have heard Shri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior companynsel for the respondent and have perused the record.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.16753 of 2004 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
The respondent filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, challenging the aforesaid order passed by the State Government.
During companytinuance of the enquiry the respondent number1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation but numbersanction or permission as required under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations was taken from the Governor by the petitioner.
The High Court repelled the companytention raised on behalf of the appellant State of U.P. that as the enquiry had been initiated before the respondent had attained the age of superannuation, numbersanction of the Governor was required and for this reliance was placed on a decision of this Court rendered in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey 1996 9 SCC 395.
It was, however, left open to the State Government to proceed against the respondent under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations after obtaining sanction from the companypetent authority.
There is numberdispute regarding the factual position that the respondent was placed under suspension on 20.10.1997 and a charge sheet companytaining 12 charges was served upon him on 24.10.1997 and shortly thereafter he attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1997.
In the writ petition challenge was laid to the order dated 10.4.2002 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow hereinafter called the Tribunal by which the claim petition filed by the respondent R.C. Misra had been allowed and the order passed by the State Government for recovery of certain amount from his pension gratuity was set aside.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 of Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench , by which the writ petition filed by the State of U.P. was dismissed.
At that time there was numberoccasion for the State Government to take any permission or sanction under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations.
The respondent attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.1997 and retired from service.
