High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12479 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14563 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the petitioner has retired from service, order of dismissal cannot not be passed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Gaya Prasad Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another passed in Special Appeal No. 408 of 2021 in which Division Bench of this Court held that once the employee is retired from service, respondent authorities cannot pass order of removal from service and he can only pass order under Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. He lastly submitted that under such facts and circumstances, orders impugned are bad and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submission, but could not dispute this fact that in the aforesaid judgment of Gaya Prasad Yadav (Supra), Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that after retirement order of removal from service cannot be passed against the employee. 6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment of Gaya Prasad Yadav (Supra). In the matter of Gaya Prasad Yadav (Supra), Division Bench of this Court has opined that penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on an employee after attaining the age of superannuation. Relevant paragraph of the said is quoted hereinbelow:- "34. In U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 there is no provision akin to the provision of 34.2 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, as discussed in the case of Rabindranath Choubey (supra). Even the Civil Service Regulations does not contain any such rule or provision which may permit passing of order of dismissal or for that matter any other penalty in case the employee has retired. Learned State Counsel has also not been able to place any such rule before us. 35. In absence of any rule, which permits imposition of punishment of dismissal after retirement or which deems the employee-employer relationship to be continued even after retirement for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings, in our opinion, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabindranath Choubey (supra) does not have any application in this case. Accordingly the reliance placed by the learned State Counsel on the said judgment is misplaced. As already observed above, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade (supra) has clearly held that penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed on an officer/employee after his retirement after attaining the age of superannuation unless there exists a specific rule in that behalf. If the disciplinary enquiry is instituted prior to retirement of the employee concerned, the same will continue by operation of Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harihar Bholenath (supra). However, in such a case if the employee is found to be guilty of grave misconduct of or is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government, it is the Governor who can take action as provided in Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. 36. Admittedly, in the instant case the proceedings were instituted prior to retirement of the appellant-petitioner, however, prior to passing of the order dated 01.11.2018 reiterating the order of dismissal, he had already retired on 31.05.2015 on his attaining the age of superannuation and accordingly after 31.05.2015 the employee-employer relationship had already got severed and thus only action permissible against him is in terms of the provisions contained in Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations." 7. Factual and legal issues involved in the present case is identical to the matter of Gaya Prasad Yadav (Supra) and I have no reason to take different view, therefore, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 22.8.2023 & 29.8.2024 are hereby quashed. 8. However, it will be open to the respondents to take action in terms of the provisions contained in Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations and in case decision to take such action is taken, the process thereof shall be completed within three months from today. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Junaid Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.8.2023 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra and the order dated 29.8.2024 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra and further disburse the regular monthly pension, regularly every month including all arrears of pension alongwith interest to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the year 1980 and thereafter he promoted as Sub Inspector on 6.6.2016. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.3.2021. During the course of service, certain incident took place when the petitioner was posted at Mathura. S.S.P., Mathura vide order dated 3.6.2016 appointed the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) Mathura to conduct the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. Ultimately, S.S.P. Mathura vide order dated 13.04.2017 has initiated the regular enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. Thereafter, Enquiry Report was submitted on 28.01.2020. Copy of enquiry report alongwith show cause notice dated 28.1.2020 was given to petitioner. The said notice was not in consonance with governing service jurisprudence. Later on, S.S.P., Mathura has issued another show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.9.2022 with direction to petitioner to submit reply within 7 days. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted reply on 3.10.2022. After receiving the reply, Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra vide order dated 22.8.2023 imposed major penalty by dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.3.2021. Against the said order, petitioner has filed appeal on 11.10.2023 before the Additional Director General of Police, which was rejected vide order dated 29.8.2024. Hence the present writ petition.