# Ravindra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-06-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51133 of 2008
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42404
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C.
Sri R.M.Pandey

Civil
Services
Regulations-Regulation
351-A-Disciplinary
Proceeding-after
3
years
of
retirement-for
alleged
misconduct relating to year 1998-2000nothing whisper in counter affidavit
about
pendency
of
any
proceeding
during
service
period-charge
sheetquashed direction release entire post
retiral benefits issued.

Held: Para-13

The petitioner was a technician and he
retired in the year 2005. After three
years of his retirement the memorandum
of charge has been issued to him
3 All] Ravindra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1347
wherein some of the allegations with
regard to the alleged loss pertaining to
the year 1998-2000, 2002, 2003 & 2004.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have
initiated disciplinary proceeding even
after three years of his retirement. There
is no explanation in the counter affidavit
that the disciplinary proceeding was not
initiated when the petitioner was in
service particularly when the charges
were pertaining to the year 1998-2000.
There is no explanation also initiating
the disciplinary proceeding after a lapse
of three years of his retirement. A
meagre amount has been paid to the
petitioner after his retirement. In the
counter affidavit there is no reference
that the petitioner's service record was
unsatisfactory and in past he was
awarded any adverse entry in respect of
negligence or misconduct. The charge
sheet also indicates that along with the
petitioner,
names
of
some
other
employees have been mentioned for
causing the peculiar loss with the
Corporation. It is not clear whether
those employees also retired or in the
service.
Case Law discussed:
Writ-A No. 19390 of 2011 decided on
18.01.2012; Writ A No. 24752 of 2012 decided
on 22.05.2012; 2008 UPLBEC (1) 808

## Text

1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the corpus had admitted that she was
married
with
Narendra
Singh.
The
subsequent statement of the corpus recorded
by the SDM Hasanpur on 27.7.2012, does
not show that she was already married with
Narendra Singh. The petitioner has not
come with clean hand. The corpus is a
minor, according to the school record, she
herself has stated that in the school record,
her date of birth is of 1995 and she has
already married with Narendra Singh. The
married wife cannot be handed over to any
other persons for having illicit relationship.
The corpus does not want to go with her
parents and with her husband Narendra
Singh, in such circumstance, she may not be
left at the mercy of others because she is not
a fully matured girl and is not having any
employment. Her natural guardian are her
parents and even she has nowhere stated in
her statement recorded on 24.6.2012 and
21.7.2012 by the S.D.M. Hasanpur that she
was having any danger to her life from her
parents whereas she has made an allegation
that her husband Narendra expelled her from
the house after taking liquor. According to
the High School marksheet her date of birth
is 10.12.1995, she is minor, her father is
ready to take her in his custody. She may not
be detained in Nari Niketan for a long period
and no fruitful purpose may be served in
keeping her in Nari Niketan. This court is
cautious about the welfare of the corpus. The
learned SDM Hasanpur passed two orders
dated 24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 by which she
has been sent to Nari Niktan Moradabad
which does not appear to be proper therefore,
the orders dated 24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 are
hereby set aside. The corpus is directed to be
released from Nari Niketan Muzaffarnagar
forthwith in the presence of the Officer-inCharge of P.S. Hasanpur, the corpus shall be
free to go to his father's house or her husband
Narendra Singh's house, the Officer-incharge of P.S. Hasanpur shall ensure that no
hurt may be caused to the corpus either at
her parent's house or her husband's house.
In case, the officer-in-charge of P.S.
Hasanpur is reported that she is not properly
behaved or maintained either by her parents
their family members or her husband as the
case may be legal action shall be taken
against such persons/persons.

7. With this direction this petition is
finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51133 of 2008

Ravindra Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri R.M.Pandey

Civil
Services
Regulations-Regulation
351-A-Disciplinary
Proceeding-after
3
years
of
retirement-for
alleged
misconduct relating to year 1998-2000nothing whisper in counter affidavit
about
pendency
of
any
proceeding
during
service
period-charge
sheetquashed direction release entire post
retiral benefits issued.

Held: Para-13

The petitioner was a technician and he
retired in the year 2005. After three
years of his retirement the memorandum
of charge has been issued to him
3 All] Ravindra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1347
wherein some of the allegations with
regard to the alleged loss pertaining to
the year 1998-2000, 2002, 2003 & 2004.
The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have
initiated disciplinary proceeding even
after three years of his retirement. There
is no explanation in the counter affidavit
that the disciplinary proceeding was not
initiated when the petitioner was in
service particularly when the charges
were pertaining to the year 1998-2000.
There is no explanation also initiating
the disciplinary proceeding after a lapse
of three years of his retirement. A
meagre amount has been paid to the
petitioner after his retirement. In the
counter affidavit there is no reference
that the petitioner's service record was
unsatisfactory and in past he was
awarded any adverse entry in respect of
negligence or misconduct. The charge
sheet also indicates that along with the
petitioner,
names
of
some
other
employees have been mentioned for
causing the peculiar loss with the
Corporation. It is not clear whether
those employees also retired or in the
service.
Case Law discussed:
Writ-A No. 19390 of 2011 decided on
18.01.2012; Writ A No. 24752 of 2012 decided
on 22.05.2012; 2008 UPLBEC (1) 808

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. By way of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner has sought issuance of
writ of certiorari for quashing the
charge memo dated 26.04.2008. A
further direction has also been sought to
be issued upon the respondent no. 2 to
pay the provident fund, gratuity and
leave encashment etc. to the petitioner.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details,
the material facts are that the petitioner
was posted as Technical Officer in U.P.
Warehousing Corporation, Bareilly. He
retired
on
reaching
his
age
of
superannuation on 31.05.2005. On his
retirement he was paid only Rs.
2,60,000/- and his other dues as
provident
fund,
gratuity,
leave
encashment and group insurance have
been withheld.

3. The petitioner made several
representations and reminders for the
payment of dues. Those representations
and reminders did not find any favour
from the concerned officers. It is stated
that after two years of his retirement on
23.01.2007 a charge memo has been
issued against him in respect of alleged
loss caused to the Ware House. The
petitioner challenged the said charge
memo mainly on the ground that the
charges against the petitioner relates to
more than four years old. The same
charges are of 1998 & 2000.

4. A perusal of various charges
would indicate that the alleged loss
mentioned in the charge memo relates
back to almost four years prior to the
petitioner's retirement.

5. I have heard Sri Ashutosh
Tripathi,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and learned standing counsel
for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the
petitioner
submits
that
under
Regulations 351-A & 470 of Civil
Services Regulations, the departmental
proceedings would have been initiated
after the retirement in respect to the
charges, which relates back, within four
years. In the present case the charges
are of 1998, 2002, 2003 & 2004.
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

7. He further urged that he stood
retired in the year 2005. However, the
department
proceedings
have
been
initiated on 26.04.2008, after three years
of his retirement.

8. He further urged that the
decision to initiate the disciplinary
proceeding against the petitioner is
arbitrary and unfair as after three years
of his retirement, he has been denied his
all post retiral benefits and he has been
called upon to answer some of the
charges pertaining to year 1998-2000.
At this distance of time, he further
urged that the petitioner is unable to
submit his reply after his retirement.

9. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on similar
fact on a Division Bench judgements in
Writ-A No. 19390 of 2011 decided on
18.01.2012 (Girish Chandra Dubey
Vs. State of U.P. And Another), Writ
A No. 24752 of 2012 decided on
22.05.2012 (Lal Babu Vs. State of U.P.
And Another) and in the case of 2008
UPLBEC
(1)
808
Rajya
Krishi
Utpandan Mandi Parishad Vs. Public
Services Tribunal U.P.

10. Learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 & 3 submitted that the service
conditions of the petitioner is governed
by
the
U.P.
State
Warehousing
Corporation Staff Regulation. He had
drawn the attention of the Court towards
the
Regulations
which
deals
with
imposition of penalty. The regulation
16(1)(e) provides "recovery from pay,
security deposit or otherwise of the
whole or part of the pecuniary loss
caused to the Corporation by the
employee."

11. He has further submitted that
the writ petition is pre mature as
petitioner
can
participate
in
the
disciplinary proceeding.

12. I have heard learned counsel
for
the
parties,
considered
their
submissions and have also perused the
record.

13. The petitioner was a technician
and he retired in the year 2005. After
three years of his retirement the
memorandum of charge has been issued
to him wherein some of the allegations
with
regard
to
the
alleged
loss
pertaining to the year 1998-2000, 2002,
2003 & 2004. The respondent nos. 2 and
3 have initiated disciplinary proceeding
even after three years of his retirement.
There is no explanation in the counter
affidavit
that
the
disciplinary
proceeding was not initiated when the
petitioner was in service particularly
when the charges were pertaining to the
year 1998-2000. There is no explanation
also
initiating
the
disciplinary
proceeding after a lapse of three years
of his retirement. A meagre amount has
been paid to the petitioner after his
retirement. In the counter affidavit there
is no reference that the petitioner's
service record was unsatisfactory and in
past he was awarded any adverse entry
in respect of negligence or misconduct.
The charge sheet also indicates that
along with the petitioner, names of
some
other
employees
have
been
mentioned for causing the peculiar loss
with the Corporation. It is not clear
whether those employees also retired or
in the service.

14. In the case of Girish Chandra
Dubey (Supra), the petitioner was
3 All] Ravindra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
1349
Assistant Store Keeper in U.P. State
Warehousing Corporation at Siddharth
Nagar. He retired in the year 2009 and
disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against him within one year of his
retirement on 20.02.2010 for the loss
caused on wheat & rice of the Food and
Civil Supplies Department in the year
2000-2001, 2001-2002 & 2002-2003
and the total value of the loss caused by
the petitioner was worked out as Rs. 19
Lac. A Division Bench of this Court
quashed the disciplinary proceeding and
took a view that no disciplinary inquiry
can be initiated against the employee as
the incident was more than four years
old prior to the retirement of the
employee and the show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner in the year
2010. It is apt to extract the relevant
part of the order:

"So far as petitioner is concerned,
no disciplinary enquiry can be initiated
against him as the incident is more than
four years old, prior to the retirement of
the petitioner as well as show cause
notice dated 20.2.2010. In the show
cause it is not stated as to when the
amount was deducted by the Food and
Civil Supplies Department from the bills
of the Corporation. Further there is no
explanation as to why the proceedings
were not initiated against the petitioner,
upto the date of his retirement, or even
thereafter. "

15. Likewise in the case of Lal
Babu
(Supra),
the
petitioner
was
employee of the same corporation and
in the said case also after his retirement
in the year 2010 the alleged loss caused
by him and which was intended to be
recovered
by
the
Corporation.
A
Division Bench of this Court has
observed as under:

"In
our
opinion,
after
the
retirement
of
the
petitioner
on
31.12.2010 he cannot be proceeded with
or held liable for the alleged loss
caused to the Corporation more than six
years prior to his retirement. The
respondents are thus not justified in
withholding
the
amount
of
leave
encashment,
contributory
provident
fund and security. "

16. The same view has been taken
by a Division Bench in the case of
Rajya
Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Parishad (Supra).

17. Learned counsel for the
Corporation was unable to point out any
provision under the U.P. Warehousing
Corporation Staff Regulation which
empowers the Management to initiate
the disciplinary proceeding after three
years of the retirement.

18. For the reasons given here in
above, the disciplinary proceeding in
pursuance of the charge memo dated
26.04.2008,
which
relates
to
the
petitioner is quashed.

19. Respondents are directed to
pay the entire outstanding dues payable
to the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of
three
months
from
the
date
of
communication of this order.

20. The writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
---------
1350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.52072 of 2012

Smt. Madhulika Sameer Azad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Sameer Mohan Azad

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.P. Dube
Sri Sanjay Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
...........................................

Family Court Act, 1984-Section 13 read
with Rule 28 of Family Courts Rule 2006Service of legal Petitioner-when can be
allowed-contingencies explained-strictly
prohibited
during
re
cancellationexemption from personal appearancenot mean to exemption for ever-Family
Court rightly exercised its desecrationwhere the husband residing in U.S.A.-can
not be interfered under writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para-19

In the instant case, the respondent is
working and living in USA and it is not
practically possible for him to attend the
proceedings at Agra on every date. He is
not denying his appearance whenever it
would be required by the court. Thus, in
the circumstances, if the family court has
permitted him to engage a lawyer, no
exception to it can be taken so as to
require any interference in exercise of
extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction.
Case Law discussed:
1992 Crl.L.J. 1592; 1998 (2) AWC 1551

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.P. Dubey, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner wife has filed this
petition aggrieved by the order dated
4.9.2012 passed by the family court Agra
allowing the respondent husband to
engage a lawyer for prosecuting the
divorce case on his behalf.

3. A little experience of the
matrimonial disputes on a bare glance on
the facts and circumstances of this
petition would reveal that the petitioner
wife has invoked the writ jurisdiction of
this Court not because the order impugned
is illegal or causes prejudice to her or
infringes her rights but to harass the
respondent husband which is sheer abuse
of the process of law.

4. The petitioner and respondent are
husband and wife.The marriage between
them was solemnized and registered at
Mumbai sometime in the year 2006.
There was a discord between them. They
started living separately. The wife at Agra
whereas the husband in job at California
(USA). The husband appears to be a
resident of Mumbai.

5. The husband initiated proceedings
for divorce against the wife at Mumbai.
The said proceedings at the instance of
wife were ordered to be transferred by the
Apex Court to the family court at Agra
where she is residing.

6. Previously, on behalf of the
husband his power of attorney holder
moved two applications for engaging a
lawyer.The
said
applications
were
rejected on the ground that the husband