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

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 757
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25711 of 2010
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Virendra Vikram Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42276
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

and avoidance of delay) Rule 1995-Rule7-readwith Civil Services RegulationsRegulation-357-A-Disciplinary
proceeding-charge sheet submitted on
13.06.07-reply submitted on 27.06.07inquiry report submitted on 19.12.07show cause notice given 22.01.08 replied
on 14.02.09-after 6 month of retirementaddition chargesheet given on 08.10.09Governor granted sanction on 18.12.09after
two
month
of
additional
chargesheet-allegation related to 200203 (more than 4 years)-Departmental
inquiry not concluded within 6 month of
retirement-additional
chargesheet
quashed-earlier
proceeding
not
concluded
within
6
month-stood
dropped-entitled for entire retirement
benefit with 10 % interest.

Held: Para 15 and 16

Further
the
U.P.
Pension
Cases
(Submission, disposal and Avoidance of
Delay )Rules, 1995 provides for the time
schedule in which the inquiry is to be
completed. As per Rule 17, the pending
departmental proceeding as against the
retired employee must be completed
within six months after his retirement.
As such, the disciplinary proceedings or
enquiry, if any, on the basis of the
charge sheet dated 13.6.2007 should
have been concluded up to six months
after the retirement of the petitioner,
which would be up to 30th September,

## Text

2 All] Surendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
757
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25711 of 2010

Surendra Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal
and avoidance of delay) Rule 1995-Rule7-readwith Civil Services RegulationsRegulation-357-A-Disciplinary
proceeding-charge sheet submitted on
13.06.07-reply submitted on 27.06.07inquiry report submitted on 19.12.07show cause notice given 22.01.08 replied
on 14.02.09-after 6 month of retirementaddition chargesheet given on 08.10.09Governor granted sanction on 18.12.09after
two
month
of
additional
chargesheet-allegation related to 200203 (more than 4 years)-Departmental
inquiry not concluded within 6 month of
retirement-additional
chargesheet
quashed-earlier
proceeding
not
concluded
within
6
month-stood
dropped-entitled for entire retirement
benefit with 10 % interest.

Held: Para 15 and 16

Further
the
U.P.
Pension
Cases
(Submission, disposal and Avoidance of
Delay )Rules, 1995 provides for the time
schedule in which the inquiry is to be
completed. As per Rule 17, the pending
departmental proceeding as against the
retired employee must be completed
within six months after his retirement.
As such, the disciplinary proceedings or
enquiry, if any, on the basis of the
charge sheet dated 13.6.2007 should
have been concluded up to six months
after the retirement of the petitioner,
which would be up to 30th September,
2009. Further the sanction was granted
by the Governor after the said date on
18.12.2009, which was in contravention
of the aforesaid rules.

In view of what has been stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, the issuance of
the
additional
charge
sheet
dated
8.10.2009 is liable to be quashed, being
violative of Rule 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulation. Further the order
dated 18.12.2009 is also liable to be
quashed being in contravention of Rule
17 of U.P. Pension Cases (Submission,
Disposal and Avoidance of Delay ) Rules,
1995.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as
Assistant
Sales
Tax
Officer
on
15.10.1976. He was served with a charge
sheet on 13.6.2007, to which the
petitioner
submitted
his
reply
on
27.9.2007.
Thereafter
the
Enquiry
Officer submitted his report dated
19.12.2007 exonerating the petitioner in
5 out of 6 charges and one charge No. 2
was
partially
proved
against
the
petitioner. A show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 22.1.2008, to
which the petitioner submitted his
detailed reply on 14.2.2008

2.

However,
no
order
of
punishment was passed against the
petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority
and in the meantime on 31.3.2009 the
petitioner has retired from the post of
Deputy
Commissioner
Trade
Tax.
However, after six months of the
retirement, an additional charge sheet
dated 8.10.2009 was issued to the
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
petitioner.
After
two
months
on
18.12.2009, the petitioner was served
with a letter indicating that the Governor
has been pleased to direct that the
disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner dated 13.6.2007 will continue
even after his retirement.

3. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
Additional
Charge
sheet
dated
18.10.2009 as well as the communication
of the order dated 18.12.2009 mentioning
that the disciplinary proceedings will
continue.

4. It has further been prayed that
the
directions
be
issued
to
the
respondents to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings instituted on 13.6.2007 in
terms of the enquiry report dated
19.12.2007 and to pay to the petitioner
his pension and other retiral dues.

5. It is specifically stated that when
the writ petition was filed in May, 2010,
an interim order was passed on 7.5.2010
directing the respondents to pay the
petitioner
his
provisional
pension
regularly and that the entire amount of
the provident fund and the remaining
amount of gratuity, leave encashment
and other dues shall be subject to the
decision of the writ petition or the
departmental enquiry.

6. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it is stated
in
the
counter
affidavit
that
in
compliance of the said interim order
dated 7.5.2010, the provisional pension
for six months was paid to the petitioner
besides the payment of 90% of the GPF
amount. After the initial payment of
provisional pension for six months, no
further payment has been made by the
respondents and two years have passed
since the passing of the interim order.

7. We heard Shri Siddharth Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents and perused the record.

8. The first question to be decided
in the petition is as to whether the fresh
charge sheet can be issued against the
petitioner
regarding
same
instance,
which took place more than four years
prior to the retirement of the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner retired on
31.3.2009.

9. The other question to be decided
is as to whether the as per the U.P.
Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal
and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995,
the pending departmental proceeding as
against the retired employee must be
competed
within
six
months
after
retirement.

10. The admitted position is that the
petitioner
retired
from
service
on
31.3.2009. Prior to that the petitioner had
been exonerated in 5 out of 6 charges
vide the enquiry report dated 19.12.2007.
In respect of one charge, it was said to be
partly proved against the petitioner, to
which the petitioner submitted his reply
on 14.2.2008 and no order has been
passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
The
additional
charge
sheet
dated
8.10.2009 was not with regard to same
instances on which the initial charge
sheet dated 13.6.2007 had been issued.

11. As such the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
same amounts to initiation of fresh
2 All] Surendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
759
departmental proceedings against the
petitione, has force. Rule 351-A of the
Civil Service Regulations provides that
no departmental proceedings can be
instituted against the officer after his
retirement without the sanction of the
Governor.

12. It further provides that no such
departmental
proceedings
can
be
instituted in respect of an event which
took place not more than four years
before
the
institution
of
such
proceedings.

13. In the present case the
additional charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner
after
his
retirement
on
8.10.2009 whereas the sanction of the
Governor
for
continuance
of
the
disciplinary proceedings dated 13.3.2007
was obtained on 18.12.2009, which was
more than two months after the issuance
of the charge sheet.

14. A perusal of the additional
charge sheet dated 8.10.2009 goes to
show that all the charges against the
petitioner related to the year 2002-2003,
which were of more than four years prior
to retirement of the petitioner or the
issuance of the additional charge sheet
dated 8.10.2009.

15. Further the U.P. Pension Cases
(Submission, disposal and Avoidance of
Delay )Rules, 1995 provides for the time
schedule in which the inquiry is to be
completed. As per Rule 17, the pending
departmental proceeding as against the
retired employee must be completed
within six months after his retirement.
As such, the disciplinary proceedings or
enquiry, if any, on the basis of the charge
sheet dated 13.6.2007 should have been
concluded up to six months after the
retirement of the petitioner, which would
be up to 30th September, 2009. Further
the
sanction
was
granted
by
the
Governor
after
the
said
date
on
18.12.2009, which was in contravention
of the aforesaid rules.

16. In view of what has been stated
in the foregoing paragraphs, the issuance
of the additional charge sheet dated
8.10.2009 is liable to be quashed, being
violative of Rule 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulation. Further the order
dated 18.12.2009 is also liable to be
quashed being in contravention of Rule
17 of U.P. Pension Cases (Submission,
Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules,
1995.

17. Accordingly the writ petition is
allowed. The additional charge sheet
dated 8.10.2009 and the order dated
18.12.2009 are hereby quashed.

18. In view of the fact that the
proceedings in pursuance of the charge
sheet dated 13.6.2007 have not been
concluded even after six months from the
date of retirement of the petitioner, the
same
shall
stand
dropped.
The
respondents are directed to pay the entire
retiral dues to the petitioner within three
months from the date of filing of a
certified copy of this order before them.
The respondents are also liable to pay
interest to the petitioner at the rate of
10% on the amount when it actually falls
due till the actual payment is made.
Respondents are also directed to pay
pension to the petitioner regularly, month
by month.
---------
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL. SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26189 of 2012

Km. Sandhya Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.Thru. Secy. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Babu Nandan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constituting of India-Article, 226-Right
to appointment-petitioner being selected
on post of Shiksha Mitra in 2009-not
send on training due to ban dated
02.06.2010-considering two conflicting
views of Division Bench-holding ban not
applicable retrospectively another even
being selected due to ban have no rightquestion referred to Larger Bench.

Held: Para 6

There is a conflict in the law laid down
by the two Division Benches, as noticed
above, it has become necessary for this
Court to refer the following questions for
being referred to a Larger Bench:

(a) Whether mere selection on a
date prior to 02.06.2010 will confer a
right upon the incumbent to claim
appointment and for being sent for
training as Shiksha Mitra even after the
State Government has imposed a ban on
such appointment on 02.06.2010 and the
scheme of Shiksha Mitra itself has been
dropped by the State Government.

(b) Whether the law laid down by
the Division Bench in the case of Sonika
Verma vs. State of U.P. and others
(supra) or the law laid down by the
Division Benches in the case of Km.
Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
(supra) and in the case of Pankaj Kumar
vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is the
correct law.
Case law discussed:
2011 (1) ESC 681; 1998 (1) ESC, 74 (SC); Km.
Rekha Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
(Special Appeal Defective No. 276 of 2011)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Petitioners, who are five in
number, claim to have been selected for
the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year
2009.
However,
they
were
neither
appointed as Shiksha Mitra nor were sent
for training despite the said selection. In
the meantime the State Government
imposed a ban on appointment of Shiksha
Mitra because of the change in the policy
vide Government Order dated 02.06.2010.
The scheme in respect of Shiksha Mitra
itself has been done away with and by
means of the subsequent government
order it has been provided that no further
training to Shiksha Mitras shall be
provided.

2. According to the petitioners one
Sheela Yadav who was also selected
similarly like the petitioner filed Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 15796 of 2011
before the High Court. The writ petition
was dismissed on 29.03.2011 because of
the ban imposed by the State Government
vide Government Order dated 02.06.2010.

3. Sheela Yadav, not being satisfied,
filed Special Appeal No. 765 of 2011.
The appeal has been allowed by the
Division Bench of the High Court and it
has been held that since selections had
taken place earlier in point of time to the