# Anand Swaroop Dohre v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 163
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19158 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-swaroop-dohre-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53721
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether the post retirement dues of an
employee serving under the government can be
withheld without there being any permission to
institute disciplinary proceedings under Article
351-A of Civil Service Regulations and

(b) Whether in contemplation of permission,
gratuity and pension amounts can be withheld
taking recourse to the provisions contained
under Article 351-AA r/w 919 A of the Civil
Service Regulations? (Para 7)

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991: Regulations 14(1);
Civil Service Regulations: Section 351-AA
r/w 919 AA - No provision is there that
may empower disciplinary authority to
issue charge sheet to a retired employee
on its own.

Regular enquiry means enquiry after the
issuance of charge sheet to the police officer. So
the three elements become relevant (i) the
police officer must be a serving officer. (ii) The
officer to issue charge sheet must not be
incompetent within the meaning of Rule 13 and
(iii) The officer competent must be of a higher
rank.

The enquiry contemplated is a regular oral
enquiry to be held like in any other department
of a government establishment. A detailed
procedure is laid down and that also does not
refer to any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It
is, therefore, clear that the preliminary fact
finding enquiry is held by the department only in
order to find a prima facie case to form a view
that charges are made out and to substantiate
and prove, then a regular domestic enquiry is
liable to be held and also to find out whether
the delinquent employee is guilty of alleged
misconduct or misappropriation of public money
as the case may be. Hence a preliminary fact
finding enquiry is not part and parcel of any
enquiry contemplated and prescribed for under
the relevant Rules. Therefore, charge-sheet
issued to an employee, after attaining the age
of superannuation, would be invalid for want of
proper sanction. (Para 11)

B. Government reserves its right to
withhold
post
retirement
dues,
etc
permanently or for a time being or in part,
either for an employee being found guilty
of misconduct or for his conviction in the
criminal case or for loss of public money.
The proviso to the said rules becomes very
relevant which provides for holding enquiry if
not instituted either before retirement or after
even during re-employment, if any, only with
the prior sanction of the Governor. (Para 13)

It is a settled legal proposition that the
enquiry only gets initiated with the
issuance of the charge sheet and issuance
of charge-sheet without the sanction of
Governor becomes bad for being de hors
the procedure prescribed. The authority
which may be competent is not vested with any
right to issue a charge sheet to a government
servant or police officers who has already
retired and is no more member of service
without having prior sanction from the Governor
or competent authority parallel to the Governor
which the rules may permit or which the State
may delegate upon a public sector authority or
Corporation etc. Hence, the charge-sheet issued
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the petitioner on 01.05.2024 was void ab
initio. (Para 14)

Therefore, the respondents would have been
justified in withholding pension and gratuity
even after the issuance of the pension payment
order and gratuity payment order provided
there was a lawfully instituted enquiry pending
against the petitioner. It is admitted to the
respondents that there is no judicial proceedings
or any proceedings by virtue of an order of
administrative tribunal pending against the
petitioner. It is only pursuant to an illegal
charge sheet issued on 01.05.2024 that on
22.04.2024 the Assistant Accounts Officer of the
Police Headquarter of the Department of
Finance Controller came to pass an order for
withholding pension and gratuity which is
absolutely illegal order in view of the findings
arrived above tha

## Text

8 All. Anand Swaroop Dohre Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
orders. Accordingly, writ petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 163
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19158 of 2024

Anand Swaroop Dohre ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Archana Singh, Bramh Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issues for consideration
(a) Whether the post retirement dues of an
employee serving under the government can be
withheld without there being any permission to
institute disciplinary proceedings under Article
351-A of Civil Service Regulations and

(b) Whether in contemplation of permission,
gratuity and pension amounts can be withheld
taking recourse to the provisions contained
under Article 351-AA r/w 919 A of the Civil
Service Regulations? (Para 7)

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991: Regulations 14(1);
Civil Service Regulations: Section 351-AA
r/w 919 AA - No provision is there that
may empower disciplinary authority to
issue charge sheet to a retired employee
on its own.

Regular enquiry means enquiry after the
issuance of charge sheet to the police officer. So
the three elements become relevant (i) the
police officer must be a serving officer. (ii) The
officer to issue charge sheet must not be
incompetent within the meaning of Rule 13 and
(iii) The officer competent must be of a higher
rank.

The enquiry contemplated is a regular oral
enquiry to be held like in any other department
of a government establishment. A detailed
procedure is laid down and that also does not
refer to any preliminary fact finding enquiry. It
is, therefore, clear that the preliminary fact
finding enquiry is held by the department only in
order to find a prima facie case to form a view
that charges are made out and to substantiate
and prove, then a regular domestic enquiry is
liable to be held and also to find out whether
the delinquent employee is guilty of alleged
misconduct or misappropriation of public money
as the case may be. Hence a preliminary fact
finding enquiry is not part and parcel of any
enquiry contemplated and prescribed for under
the relevant Rules. Therefore, charge-sheet
issued to an employee, after attaining the age
of superannuation, would be invalid for want of
proper sanction. (Para 11)

B. Government reserves its right to
withhold
post
retirement
dues,
etc
permanently or for a time being or in part,
either for an employee being found guilty
of misconduct or for his conviction in the
criminal case or for loss of public money.
The proviso to the said rules becomes very
relevant which provides for holding enquiry if
not instituted either before retirement or after
even during re-employment, if any, only with
the prior sanction of the Governor. (Para 13)

It is a settled legal proposition that the
enquiry only gets initiated with the
issuance of the charge sheet and issuance
of charge-sheet without the sanction of
Governor becomes bad for being de hors
the procedure prescribed. The authority
which may be competent is not vested with any
right to issue a charge sheet to a government
servant or police officers who has already
retired and is no more member of service
without having prior sanction from the Governor
or competent authority parallel to the Governor
which the rules may permit or which the State
may delegate upon a public sector authority or
Corporation etc. Hence, the charge-sheet issued
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the petitioner on 01.05.2024 was void ab
initio. (Para 14)

Therefore, the respondents would have been
justified in withholding pension and gratuity
even after the issuance of the pension payment
order and gratuity payment order provided
there was a lawfully instituted enquiry pending
against the petitioner. It is admitted to the
respondents that there is no judicial proceedings
or any proceedings by virtue of an order of
administrative tribunal pending against the
petitioner. It is only pursuant to an illegal
charge sheet issued on 01.05.2024 that on
22.04.2024 the Assistant Accounts Officer of the
Police Headquarter of the Department of
Finance Controller came to pass an order for
withholding pension and gratuity which is
absolutely illegal order in view of the findings
arrived above that there was no prior sanction
by
the
Governor
to
institute
disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner which has
resulted in holding chargesheet to be null and
void. The entire instructions is silent as to
whether any letter has been written to the State
Government seeking prior approval from the
Governor. The respondents are held to be
unjustified in withholding pension and gratuity
of the petitioner. (Para 15 to 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

List of Acts
 Civil Service Regulations; U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991.

List of Keywords
 Service Law; pension; gratuity; post retirement
dues.

Appearances of parties

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Archana
Singh, Bramh Narayan Singh
Counsel for the Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Bramh Narayan Singh,
learned counsel appearing for petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel representing
State respondents.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution
petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari
for quashing the order dated 22.04.2024
passed by the Finance Controller, U.P.
Police Headquarter, Lucknow directing for
withholding of the pension payment order/
gratuity payment order in contemplation of
a permission to be granted by the Hon'ble
Governor in exercise of power vested under
Article
351-A of
the Civil
Service
Regulations.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for
petitioner that there is no such law which
permits respondents to issue charge sheet to
a
retired
employee
without
seeking
permission from the Governor within the
meaning of Article 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulations, and hence, the chargesheet itself is null and void. He submits that
petitioner got superannuated on 30.01.2024
and charge-sheet came to be issued on
01.05.2024, which therefore, was per se
bad as the government rules do not provide
for institution of any disciplinary enquiry
against an employee who has attained the
age of superannuation except with the prior
approval of the Governor. It is, therefore,
contended that in the event rules provides
for prior approval, any order without
seeking prior approval is liable to be held
null and void for want of lawful authority.

4. Learned Standing Counsel who has
obtained instructions in the matter has
placed the same before the Court today, a
copy of which is also supplied to the
learned counsel for petitioner.

5. From the instructions that have been
furnished to the Court, it clearly transpires
8 All. Anand Swaroop Dohre Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
165
that the petitioner was issued with the
charge-sheet
on
01.05.2024
levelling
charges to set into motion the disciplinary
proceedings
taking
recourse
to
the
provisions as contained under Regulations
14 (1) of the U.P. Police Officer of
Subordinate
Rank
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 and I further notice
that subsequently a letter is written on
22.04.2024
to
the
Assistant
Police
Commissioner,
Commissionerate,
Headquarter Agra for taking necessary
steps to process the papers for permission
under Article 351-A of the the Civil
Service
Regulations
to
withhold
the
gratuity and pension as per regulation 351AA with 919-A of the Civil Service
Regulations.

6. It is contended by learned Standing
Counsel that on the date when petitioner
attained the age of superannuation a
preliminary
fact
finding
enquiry
was
underway and hence in continuation thereof,
a charge sheet has come to be issued and
hence, the charge-sheet cannot be invalidated,
inasmuch as, he submits, an inquiry officer
also came to be appointed on 31.01.2024 the
last day of the service of the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the records,
the question that arises for consideration of
the Court is as to whether the post
retirement dues of an employee serving
under the government can be withheld
without there being any permission to
institute disciplinary proceedings under
Article
351-A of
the Civil
Service
Regulations and whether in contemplation
of
permission,
gratuity
and
pension
amounts can be withheld taking recourse to
the provisions contained under Article 351AA read-with 919 A of the Civil Service
Regulations.

8. The impugned action is sought to be
defended by the learned Standing Counsel
on the ground that a preliminary fact
finding enquiry was already pending
against the petitioner on the date of his
retirement hence, appointment of inquiry
officer and issuance of charge sheet would
be taken as sequel to the same and,
therefore, in anticipation of permission
under Article 351-A of the Civil Service
Regulations, approval can be granted for
withholding pension and gratuity and such
exercise of power would be void within the
meaning of Section 351-AA read with 919
AA of the Civil Service Regulations.
Petitioner's
ground
for
challenge
is
institution of any disciplinary proceeding
can be only with the issuance of charge
sheet and once the employee has attained
the age of superannuation, no charge-sheet
can be issued in anticipation of permission.
It has been argued that the charge-sheet
could have only been issued only after prior
sanction was accorded.

9. In order to test the rival submissions
to find answers to the questions framed
above, I now proceed to examine the
relevant provisions contained under the
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
exhaustively lays down not only the
punishments that can be imposed but also
the procedure to be followed in the matter
of disciplinary proceedings. Rule 2 of those
rules clearly provide that these rule shall
apply to all the police officers of
subordinate ranks below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, meaning thereby
the rules are made applicable only to those
who are in service and not those who have
retired. Rule 3 provides for definition and
rule 3(g) defines Police Officers as "Police
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officers of the Subordinate Rank below the
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police".
Any prudent man would conclude that the
police officer means a working officer and
not a retired officer because a retired
officer does not remain police officer for no
more
being
member
of
police
establishment.
Rule
5
provides
for
procedure for award of punishment by
holding an enquiry as per rule 14(1) against
the police officer. Rule 6 provides for place
of enquiry and rule 7 provides for power of
punishment vested as against certain
officers. Rule 13 provides officer who are
not competent to conduct disciplinary
proceedings while Rule 14 (1) lays down
the procedure. Rule 14 (1) becomes
relevant, hence, for the purposes of this
case is being reproduced hereunder:

"14. Procedure for conducting
departmental proceedings. (1) Subject to
the provisions contained in these Rules the
departmental proceedings in the case
referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 against
the Police Officers may be conducted in
accordance with the procedure laid down
in Appendix I".

10. Upon a plain reading aforesaid
provisions, I do not find from any of the
words and expression used therein which
may entitled police to hold a preliminary
fact finding enquiry as a part of disciplinary
enquiry so as to justify an action based
thereupon. It only refers to the regular
enquiry to be held as per appendix-1 which
is reproduced hereunder:

PROCEDURE RELATING TO
THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
POLICE
OFFICER

[See Rule 14(1)]

Upon institution of a formal
enquiry such Police Officer against whom
the inquiry has been instituted shall be
informed in writing of the grounds on
which was proposed to take action and
shall be afforded an adequate opportunity
of defending itself. The grounds on which it
is proposed to take action shall be used in
the form of a definite charge or charges as
in Form 1 appended to these Rules which
shall be communicated to the charge Police
Officer and which shall be so clear and
precise as to given sufficient indication to
the charges Police Officer, of the facts and
circumstances against him. He shall be
required, within a reasonable time, to put
in, a written statement of his defence and to
state, whether he desires to be heard in
person. If he so desires, or it the Inquiry
officer so direct an oral enquiry shall be
held in respect of such of the allegation as
are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral
evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry
Officer considers necessary. The charge
Police Officer shall be entitled to crossexamine the witnesses to give evidence in
person and to have such witnesses called as
he
may
wish:
Provided that the inquiry officer may for
sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing
refuse to call a witness. The proceedings
shall contain a sufficient record of the
evidence and statement of the finding and
the ground thereof. The inquiry officer may
also separately from these proceedings
make his own recommendation regarding
the punishment to be imposed on the
charged Police Officer."

11. Regular enquiry means enquiry
after the issuance of charge sheet to the
police officer. So the three elements
become relevant (i) the police officer must
be a serving officer. (ii) The officer to issue
charge sheet must not be incompetent
8 All. Anand Swaroop Dohre Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
within the meaning of Rule 13 and (iii) The
officer competent must be of a higher rank.
Now coming to the appendix-1 of the
Regulation,
I
find
that
the
enquiry
contemplated is a regular oral enquiry to be
held like in any other department of a
government
establishment.
A
detailed
procedure is laid down and that also does
not refer to any preliminary fact finding
enquiry. It is, therefore, clear that the
preliminary fact finding enquiry is held by
the department only in order to find a prima
facie case to form a view that charges are
made out and to substantiate and prove,
then a regular domestic enquiry is liable to
be held and also to find out whether the
delinquent employee is guilty of alleged
misconduct or misappropriation of public
money as the case may be. Hence a
preliminary fact finding enquiry is not part
and parcel of any enquiry contemplated and
prescribed for under the relevant Rules.
Therefore, the argument advanced by
learned Standing Counsel that issuance of
charge-sheet, may be after attaining the age
of superannuation to an employee, would
be valid and will not get invalidated for
want of proper sanction, is a highly
misplaced and deserves to be rejected. No
such provision is there that may empower
disciplinary authority to issue charge sheet
to a retired employee on its own.

12. Now coming to the question
whether even after retirement such chargesheet could have been issued and post
retirement dues could have been withheld
in anticipation of approval of the Governor.
In order to appreciate this I proceed to
examine the relevant provisions contained
under the Civil Service Regulation 351-A
which is reproduced hereunder:

"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
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 reemployment after retirement: Provided
that-- (a) Such departmental proceedings,
if not instituted while the officer was on
duty either before retirement or during reemployment- (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 proceeding; 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. (b) Judicial proceedings, if
not instituted while the officer was on duty
either before retirement or during reemployment, shall have been instituted in
accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause
(a); and (c) the Public Service Commission,
U.P. shall be consulted before final orders
are passed. [Provided further that of the
order passed by the Governor relates to a
cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh
Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative
Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be
necessary
to
consult
Public
Service
Commission].
Explanation-
for
the
purposes of this article- (a) Departmental
proceedings shall be deemed to have been
instituted when the 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 (b)
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judicial proceedings shall be deemed to
have been instituted: (i) in the case of
criminal proceedings, on the date on which
complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is
submitted, to a criminal court; and (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. Note--As soon as proceedings of the
nature referred to in this article are
instituted the authority which institutes
such proceedings shall without delay
intimate the fact to the Audit Officer
concerned. "

13. Upon a bare reading of the
aforesaid regulation, it is clear that
government reserves its right to withhold
post retirement dues, etc permanently or for
a time being or in part, either for an
employee being found guilty of misconduct
or for his conviction in the criminal case or
for loss of public money. The proviso to the
said rules becomes very relevant which
provides for holding enquiry if not
instituted either before retirement or after
even during re-employment, if any, only
with the prior sanction of the Governor. It
therefore, becomes apparently clear that
any initiation or institution of enquiry will
be only with the prior sanction of the
Governor.

14 It is a settled legal proposition that
the enquiry only gets initiated with the
issuance of the charge sheet and issuance of
charge-sheet without the sanction of
Governor becomes bad for being de hors
the procedure prescribed. The authority
which may be competent is not vested with
any right to issue a charge sheet to a
government servant or police officers who
has already retired and is no more member
of service without having prior sanction
from the Governor or competent authority
parallel to the Governor which the rules
may permit or which the State may
delegate upon a public sector authority or
Corporation etc. Hence, on this analogy
also as discussed above, the charge-sheet
issued to the petitioner on 01.05.2024 was
void ab initio.

15. Now the power that is vested
under Regulations 351-AA and 919-A if
read
together,
respondent
State
Government is permitted to withhold
pension and gratuity, provided of course,
after
the
age
of
superannuation
a
departmental or judicial proceedings or any
enquiry before the tribunal is pending.
Articles 351-AA and 919-A of the Civil
Service
Regulations
are
reproduced
hereunder:

351-AA.
In
the
case
of
a
Government
Servant
who
retires
on
attaining the age of superannuation or
otherwise
and
against
whom
any
departmental or Judicial proceedings or
any enquiry by Administrative Tribunal is
pending on the date of retirement or is to
be instituted after retirement a provisional
pension as provided in Article 919-A may
be sanctioned?

[919-A (1) In case referred to in
Article 351-AA the Head of Department
authorise the provisional pension equal to
the maximum pension which would have
been admissible on the basis of qualifying
service upto the date of retirement of the
Government servant or if he was under
suspension on the date and retirement upto
the date immediately preceding on the date
on which he was placed under suspension.

(2) The provisional pension shall
be authorised for the period commencing
from the date of retirement upto and
including
the
date
on
which
after
conclusion of departmental or judicial
8 All. Abhinav Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
proceeding
or
the
enquiry
by
the
administrative Tribunal; as the case may
be, final orders are passed by the
competent authority.

(3)
No
death-cum-retirement
gratuity shall be paid to the Government
servant
until
the
conclusion
of
the
departmental proceedings or the enquiry by
the Administrative Tribunal and issue of
final orders thereon.

(4)
Payment
of
provisional
pension made under clause (1) above shall
be
adjusted
against
final
retirement
benefits sanctioned to such Government
servant upon conclusion of the proceedings
or enquiry referred to in clause (3) but no
recovery shall be made where the pension
finally
sanctioned
is
less
than
the
provisional pension or withheld either
permanently or for specified period.?

(emphasis added)

16. In view of the above, therefore, the
respondents would have been justified in
withholding pension and gratuity even after
the issuance of the pension payment order
and gratuity payment order provided there
was a lawfully instituted enquiry pending
against the petitioner. It is admitted to the
respondents that there is no judicial
proceedings or any proceedings by virtue
of an order of administrative tribunal
pending against the petitioner. It is only
pursuant to an illegal charge sheet issued
on 01.05.2024 that on 22.04.2024 the
Assistant Accounts Officer of the Police
Headquarter of the Department of Finance
Controller came to pass an order for
withholding pension and gratuity which
according to me, is absolutely illegal order
in view of the findings arrived above that
there was no prior sanction by the
Governor
to
institute
disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner which
has resulted in holding charge-sheet to be
null and void. The entire instructions is
silent as to whether any letter has been
written to the State Government seeking
prior approval from the Governor.

17. In view of the above, the
respondents are held to be unjustified in
withholding pension and gratuity of the
petitioner.

18. Thus this writ petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order passed dated
22.04.2024 at the behest of Finance
Controller
U.P.
Police
Headquarter,
Lucknow directing for withholding of
pension and gratuity of the petitioner is
hereby quashed.

19. Respondents are directed to
immediately
release
the
entire
post
retirement dues including gratuity without
any deduction within a maximum period of
six weeks from the production of certified
copy of this order failing which they shall
be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12%
from the date of his retirement till the
actual payment is made.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 169
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19283 of 2023

Abhinav Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajesh Kumar, Shree Prakash Giri