State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Co-Operative And Anr. vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

Sri Ayush Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kumar, learned counsel the opposite party no. 1, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03-02-2108, by virtue of which the amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- has been directed to recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Further prayer is made that the aforesaid amount be paid with interest to the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Project Engineer and served for about 34 years in the respondent department with unblemished career and he retired on 31-12-2016, after attaining the age of superannuation, from the post of Chief Engineer. He submitted that after the retirement, when the post retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, he made representation for payment of the same and once no heed was paid, the petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing no. 12073(S/B) of 2017, wherein the order was passed for deciding the representation of the 2 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 petitioner with respect to the claim of his retiral dues, which was decided vide order dated 15-01-2018 and the abovesaid amount shown to be recovered i.e. Rs. 28,00,457/- out of which Rs. 25,78,463/- has been stopped to be paid and the rest amount was paid to the petitioner. He added that feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 2749 (S/B) of 2018, for release of the rest of the retiral dues,whereafter, the order impugned dated 03-02-2018 has been passed and the department on the basis of the audit objections, has decided to withheld the amount of retiral dues of Rs. 25,78,463/-, which is unjustified. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was superannuated in the year 2016 and at that point of time, the provision the U.P. Cooperative Societies Services Regulations,1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975') was applicable. Further submission is that as per the Regulations, 1975, there is no provision for any recovery, after the retirement of an employee of the UPRNSS. He submitted that it reveals that the aforesaid amount has been withheld/recovered only on the basis of audit objection, which is impermissible under the law. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited and Another, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15 and has referred paragraph no. 60 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:- "60. As observed above, UPPTCL demanded and partly realized cess on the supply Contract, solely on the basis of report of the CAG. In our considered view, in the absence of any adjudication, it was impermissible for UPPTCL to issue the impugned communication to realize cess solely on the basis of the report of the CAG." He also submitted that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs U.P.Cooperative Institutional 3 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 Service Board,Lucknow & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 5848-49 of 2014 decided on 30-06-2014 that after retirement from service, no authority is vested with the respondent for continuing the disciplinary proceedings unless it is provided under the rules and admittedly, in the present matter, there is no such provision regarding any kind of enquiry or order of recovery after retirement of an employee. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the impugned order dated 03-02-2018 is not only against the provision of Regulations, 1975, but, that too, is against the settled proposition of law and thus, the same is unsustainable. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the audit report of the financial year 2015-2016 discloses there was some embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- and therefore, the Board unanimously decided, in it's meeting held on 19-12-2017, for recovery of the aforesaid amount. He added that the audit report dated 08-02-2017 is evident that the said amount is recoverable from the petitioner and after issuing show cause notice, the order for recovery of the amount has been passed against the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, the moot question, which is to be decided is that whether after retirement of an employee of the respondent institute, the disciplinary proceeding or any enquiry can be allowed to be continued and further whether on the basis of an audit objection, the recovery can be fixed upon an employee, after his retirement. When this court examines the abovesaid two questions in the facts and law, it reveals that the petitioner after completion of 34 years of his successful career in service,retired in the year 2016 and during his period of service, there was no complaint against him, however, subsequently, it was brought before the Board on the basis of audit objection that the amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- is recoverable from the 4 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 petitioner. This court has noticed while going through the 'Regulations, 1975' that there was no such provision in the year 2016 to proceed with any disciplinary enquiry or to make any recovery after four years of the retirement of an employee of the UPRNSS. This court has also noticed that the audit objection is the sole basis for recovery of the amount shown against the petitioner as is mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. The law is settled in this view that no recovery can be made only on the basis of audit objection unless there are other corroborative evidences in support thereof, which are been discussed while taking the decision for recovery of such amount. The order impugned does not disclose that there were any other evidence than the audit report, on the basis of which, the order of recovery is passed. Further so far as the proceeding for recovery after retirement of an employee is concerned, that was not in existence in the year 2016, therefore, the order of recovery, passed against the petitioner, is unsustainable. Consequently, the order impugned dated 03-02-2018 is hereby quashed. The opposite party no. 2 is directed to make the payment of Rs. 25,78,463/-said to be withheld alongwith payable interest to the petitioner within the period of two months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 26, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Ayush Chaudhary, Advocate has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kumar, learned counsel the opposite party no. 1, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ayush Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03-02-2108, by virtue of which the amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- has been directed to recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Further prayer is made that the aforesaid amount be paid with interest to the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Project Engineer and served for about 34 years in the respondent department with unblemished career and he retired on 31-12-2016, after attaining the age of superannuation, from the post of Chief Engineer. He submitted that after the retirement, when the post retiral dues were not paid to the petitioner, he made representation for payment of the same and once no heed was paid, the petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing no. 12073(S/B) of 2017, wherein the order was passed for deciding the representation of the 2 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 petitioner with respect to the claim of his retiral dues, which was decided vide order dated 15-01-2018 and the abovesaid amount shown to be recovered i.e. Rs. 28,00,457/- out of which Rs. 25,78,463/- has been stopped to be paid and the rest amount was paid to the petitioner. He added that feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred writ petition no. 2749 (S/B) of 2018, for release of the rest of the retiral dues,whereafter, the order impugned dated 03-02-2018 has been passed and the department on the basis of the audit objections, has decided to withheld the amount of retiral dues of Rs. 25,78,463/-, which is unjustified. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was superannuated in the year 2016 and at that point of time, the provision the U.P. Cooperative Societies Services Regulations,1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975') was applicable. Further submission is that as per the Regulations, 1975, there is no provision for any recovery, after the retirement of an employee of the UPRNSS. He submitted that it reveals that the aforesaid amount has been withheld/recovered only on the basis of audit objection, which is impermissible under the law. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs CG Power And Industrial Solutions Limited and Another, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15 and has referred paragraph no. 60 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:- "60. As observed above, UPPTCL demanded and partly realized cess on the supply Contract, solely on the basis of report of the CAG. In our considered view, in the absence of any adjudication, it was impermissible for UPPTCL to issue the impugned communication to realize cess solely on the basis of the report of the CAG." He also submitted that the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari Vs U.P.Cooperative Institutional 3 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 Service Board,Lucknow & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 5848-49 of 2014 decided on 30-06-2014 that after retirement from service, no authority is vested with the respondent for continuing the disciplinary proceedings unless it is provided under the rules and admittedly, in the present matter, there is no such provision regarding any kind of enquiry or order of recovery after retirement of an employee. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the impugned order dated 03-02-2018 is not only against the provision of Regulations, 1975, but, that too, is against the settled proposition of law and thus, the same is unsustainable. On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the audit report of the financial year 2015-2016 discloses there was some embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- and therefore, the Board unanimously decided, in it's meeting held on 19-12-2017, for recovery of the aforesaid amount. He added that the audit report dated 08-02-2017 is evident that the said amount is recoverable from the petitioner and after issuing show cause notice, the order for recovery of the amount has been passed against the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, the moot question, which is to be decided is that whether after retirement of an employee of the respondent institute, the disciplinary proceeding or any enquiry can be allowed to be continued and further whether on the basis of an audit objection, the recovery can be fixed upon an employee, after his retirement. When this court examines the abovesaid two questions in the facts and law, it reveals that the petitioner after completion of 34 years of his successful career in service,retired in the year 2016 and during his period of service, there was no complaint against him, however, subsequently, it was brought before the Board on the basis of audit objection that the amount of Rs. 25,78,463/- is recoverable from the 4 WRIA No. 7089 of 2018 petitioner. This court has noticed while going through the 'Regulations, 1975' that there was no such provision in the year 2016 to proceed with any disciplinary enquiry or to make any recovery after four years of the retirement of an employee of the UPRNSS. This court has also noticed that the audit objection is the sole basis for recovery of the amount shown against the petitioner as is mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2. The law is settled in this view that no recovery can be made only on the basis of audit objection unless there are other corroborative evidences in support thereof, which are been discussed while taking the decision for recovery of such amount. The order impugned does not disclose that there were any other evidence than the audit report, on the basis of which, the order of recovery is passed. Further so far as the proceeding for recovery after retirement of an employee is concerned, that was not in existence in the year 2016, therefore, the order of recovery, passed against the petitioner, is unsustainable. Consequently, the order impugned dated 03-02-2018 is hereby quashed. The opposite party no. 2 is directed to make the payment of Rs. 25,78,463/-said to be withheld alongwith payable interest to the petitioner within the period of two months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 26, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench