# Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1583
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-19
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1964 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42803
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

U.P. Civil Services Regulations-Regulation
351-A-Withholding
10%
pension-in
disciplinary proceeding appellant found guilty
of charges-punishment of withholding 10%
from pension-learned Single Judge-declined
to interfere-argument that in absence of
pecuniary loss-no power to withhold pensionhence-considering amended provision of
Regulation 351-A w.e.f. 01.01.61-penalty of
withholding
10%
pension-can
not
be
regarded as unconceivable-no interference
call for-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-6
After the amendment, the provision has
now been modified so as to allow the
exercise of power under regulation 351-A of
the Regulations even in a situation where
an employee is found to have been guilty of
grave
misconduct
in
departmental
or
judicial
proceeding.
Hence,
both
the
legislative history as well as the plain and
literal meaning of regulation 351-A of the
Regulations do not support the submission
which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant. In the circumstances, the extent
of penalty which has been imposed in the
present case cannot be regarded as
unconscionable. No case for interference is
made out.

Case Law discussed:
A.Savariar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission and another.

## Text

3 All] Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1583

13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we
allow this appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge dated 25 November 2013. In
consequence, we direct that Writ - C No.
5825 of 2012 shall now be placed before the
learned Single Judge in accordance with the
roster of work.

14. We clarify that since we have
held that the learned Single Judge had no
jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to
pass the impugned order dated 25
November
2013,
it
would not
be
necessary for us to express any view on
the merits of the allegation of a breach of
the judgment of this Court of 1997.

15. We also clarify that when the
writ petition is placed before the learned
Single Judge in pursuance of the present
judgment and order, all the rights and
contentions of the parties are kept open to
be urged before and decided by the
learned Single Judge on all issues which
may arise for consideration.

16. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1964 of 2013

Chandra Pal Singh .Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors... .Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Shesh Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Civil Services Regulations-Regulation
351-A-Withholding
10%
pension-in
disciplinary proceeding appellant found guilty
of charges-punishment of withholding 10%
from pension-learned Single Judge-declined
to interfere-argument that in absence of
pecuniary loss-no power to withhold pensionhence-considering amended provision of
Regulation 351-A w.e.f. 01.01.61-penalty of
withholding
10%
pension-can
not
be
regarded as unconceivable-no interference
call for-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para-6
After the amendment, the provision has
now been modified so as to allow the
exercise of power under regulation 351-A of
the Regulations even in a situation where
an employee is found to have been guilty of
grave
misconduct
in
departmental
or
judicial
proceeding.
Hence,
both
the
legislative history as well as the plain and
literal meaning of regulation 351-A of the
Regulations do not support the submission
which has been urged on behalf of the
appellant. In the circumstances, the extent
of penalty which has been imposed in the
present case cannot be regarded as
unconscionable. No case for interference is
made out.

Case Law discussed:
A.Savariar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu
Public Service Commission and another.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. The special appeal arises from a
judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated
7
November
2013.
By
the
judgment, which is impugned, the learned
Single Judge dismissed a petition filed by
the appellant seeking to question several
orders, the substance of which is that 10%
of the pension which is payable to the
appellant
has
been
withheld
under
1584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service
Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Regulations').

2. The charge against the appellant
which has been held to be proved in
pursuance of an enquiry in which the
appellant participated is that when the
appellant was working on the post of Naib
Tehsildar in 1990-91 he had issued a false
certificate to one Rama Kant S/o Babu
Ram to the effect that he had rendered
service in the Government between
February 1981 to June 1982. The learned
Single Judge has held that the enquiry
was conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and was fair
and proper. Following a decision of the
Supreme Court in A. Savariar Vs. The
Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission and another 1, the learned
Single Judge has held that once there was
tangible evidence to support the charge of
misconduct, no case for interference
under Article 226 of the Constitution is
made out.

3. The submission which has been
urged on behalf of the appellant is that no
pecuniary loss is found to have been
sustained by the Government and hence,
no deduction from the pension could have
been ordered under regulation 351-A of
the Regulations. Regulation 351-A of the
Regulations reads as follows:

"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 re-employment after
retirement."

4.

Regulation
351-A
of
the
Regulations falls for analysis. Under the
regulation, the Government reserves to itself
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
in certain stipulated circumstances. In other
words, firstly, the Government can withhold
or withdraw a pension or any part of it.
Secondly, in addition it is open to the
Government to order recovery from a
pension. There are two components in
regulation 351-A of the Regulations each of
which operates independently. The first is
where a pecuniary loss is caused to the
Government, while the second is where the
pensioner is found to have been guilty of
grave misconduct. If the pensioner is found
to be guilty in departmental or judicial
proceeding of grave misconduct, it is open to
the Government to withhold or withdraw the
pension or any part of it. Alternatively, the
power under regulation 351-A of the
Regulations can be exercised also if the
pensioner is found to have caused pecuniary
loss to the Government by misconduct or
negligence during his service or during reemployment. In that case, the Government
can reimburse itself in regard to the loss or,
as the case may be, a part of the pecuniary
loss caused. In other words, it would not be a
correct reading of regulation 351-A of the
Regulations to hold that the power to
withhold or withdraw a pension cannot be
exercised
despite
a
finding
in
the
departmental or judicial proceeding of grave
misconduct on the part of the employee
merely on the ground that no pecuniary loss
3 All] Sharad Chandra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1585
has been sustained by the Government. The
power to pass an order under regulation 351A of the Regulations, in the event of a
pecuniary loss being found to have been
sustained by the Government, is independent
of the power which can be exercised under
the regulation where the employee is guilty
of grave misconduct as established in the
departmental or judicial proceeding.

5. At this stage, it may also be noted
that before its amendment on 6 January
1961, regulation 351-A reserved to the
Provincial Government the right to order
recovery from the pension 'of any amount
on account of loss found in judicial or
departmental proceeding to have been
caused to Government by the negligence
or fraud of such officer during his
service'.The earlier provision insofar as is
material reads as follows:-

"351-A. The Provincial Government
reserve to themselves the right to order
the recovery from the pension of an
officer who entered service on or after 7th
August, 1940 of any amount on account
of losses found in judicial or departmental
proceeding to have been caused to
Government by the negligence or fraud of
such officer during his service."

6. After the amendment, the
provision has now been modified so as to
allow the exercise of power under
regulation 351-A of the Regulations even
in a situation where an employee is found
to have been guilty of grave misconduct in
departmental or judicial proceeding. Hence,
both the legislative history as well as the
plain and literal meaning of regulation 351A of the Regulations do not support the
submission which has been urged on behalf
of the appellant. In the circumstances, the
extent of penalty which has been imposed
in the present case cannot be regarded as
unconscionable. No case for interference is
made out.

7. The special appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Service Single No.1993 of 2013

Sharad Chandra Tiwari & Ors.
 Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri A.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Balram Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
Law-Retirement
age-logging
officerworking in forest department-retired in
the year 2012 on 58 years age-although
Board
of
director
already
by
its
resolution
dated
12.2011-decided
to
enhanced the age as 60 years-state
government-granted approval only by
G.O.
dated
08.03.2013
having
no
retrospective effect-held-retirement on
58 years-in the years 2012-as per law
prevailing at that time-proper-warrant
no interference.

Held: Para-6
In view of above and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, in my
view, retirement of petitioners in 2012,
on attaining the age of superannuation
of 58 years, according to the then
existing provision, cannot be said to be
bad and it does not warrant interference.
The change in age of retirement in