Neeraj Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture U.P. Lko. And Another

in the facts of the case specifically with reference to the Rules of Business, 1975 of the State of U.P. referred to by us. In absence of sanction of the Governor, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a government servant after his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 27.06.2011 is hereby quashed as also the departmental proceedings initiated thereto against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits with the result of the quashing of the charge-sheet departmental proceedings. The State is directed to take appropriate action in that regard within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the State Government. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction herein above."

9. The aforesaid judgment was thereafter challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z.U. Ansari (supra). Due to a difference 7 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 of opinion, it was referred to a Larger Bench where it is said to be still pending.

10. Nonetheless the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Z.U.Ansari (supra) has thereafter been followed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Yadav (supra).

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others [(2023) 14 SCC 782] has held that till decision from a Larger Bench, it would be against judicial propriety ignore judgment Reference.

12. It is also relevant that as has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner, final report has already been accepted without any challenge thereto.

13. Apart from aforesaid, it is also noticeable that recourse has been taken not only to the Rules of 1975 but the Manual of 2004 as well. The provisions thereof specifically indicate that in case of any orders passed by the Cabinet, Departmental Minister, Deputy Minister, Chief Secretary or other Secretaries of the Government, it would be deemed that the orders have been issued in the name of Governor of the State.

14. The aforesaid provisions of Manual 2004 as well the Rules of 1975 are clearly referable to Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India wherein the Governor of the State being the Chief Executive Officer of the State, all decisions taken by the State 8 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 Government would necessarily be deemed to have been taken in the name of Governor of the State.

15. However with regard to sanction under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid provisions of Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India would be clearly inapplicable particularly since Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations specifically provides for sanction to be accorded only by the Governor of the State. Provisions of 351 of the Civil Service Regulations are as follows: "Article 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 ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to 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 negligence, during service, including service rendered re- employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment: (i) shall not be instituted save 9 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more before institution of such proceedings, (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct accordance procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation- For the purposes of this Article- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge- 10 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 sheet is submitted to a criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings on the date on which the plaint is presented, or as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. Note- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this Article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned."

16. It is thus quite evident that once power of sanctioned Article 351A has been specifically conferred upon Governor of the State, the deeming provisions under the Manual of 2004 and Rules of 1975 would be inapplicable.

17. In such circumstances, it is evident that with regard to present dispute, there is no sanction accorded by the Governor of the State under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations.

18. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.10.2024 and consequential actions taken by the State are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the outstanding amount of leave encashment due to petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 31.01.2023 till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be ensured by the concerned authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 11 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025

19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 24, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

in the facts of the case specifically with reference to the Rules of Business, 1975 of the State of U.P. referred to by us. In absence of sanction of the Governor, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a government servant after his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 27.06.2011 is hereby quashed as also the departmental proceedings initiated thereto against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits with the result of the quashing of the charge-sheet departmental proceedings. The State is directed to take appropriate action in that regard within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the State Government. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction herein above."

9. The aforesaid judgment was thereafter challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z.U. Ansari (supra). Due to a difference 7 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 of opinion, it was referred to a Larger Bench where it is said to be still pending.

10. Nonetheless the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Z.U.Ansari (supra) has thereafter been followed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Yadav (supra).

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others [(2023) 14 SCC 782] has held that till decision from a Larger Bench, it would be against judicial propriety ignore judgment Reference.

12. It is also relevant that as has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner, final report has already been accepted without any challenge thereto.

13. Apart from aforesaid, it is also noticeable that recourse has been taken not only to the Rules of 1975 but the Manual of 2004 as well. The provisions thereof specifically indicate that in case of any orders passed by the Cabinet, Departmental Minister, Deputy Minister, Chief Secretary or other Secretaries of the Government, it would be deemed that the orders have been issued in the name of Governor of the State.

14. The aforesaid provisions of Manual 2004 as well the Rules of 1975 are clearly referable to Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India wherein the Governor of the State being the Chief Executive Officer of the State, all decisions taken by the State 8 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 Government would necessarily be deemed to have been taken in the name of Governor of the State.

15. However with regard to sanction under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid provisions of Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India would be clearly inapplicable particularly since Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations specifically provides for sanction to be accorded only by the Governor of the State. Provisions of 351 of the Civil Service Regulations are as follows: "Article 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 ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to 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 negligence, during service, including service rendered re- employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment: (i) shall not be instituted save 9 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more before institution of such proceedings, (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct accordance procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation- For the purposes of this Article- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge- 10 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 sheet is submitted to a criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings on the date on which the plaint is presented, or as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. Note- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this Article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned."

16. It is thus quite evident that once power of sanctioned Article 351A has been specifically conferred upon Governor of the State, the deeming provisions under the Manual of 2004 and Rules of 1975 would be inapplicable.

17. In such circumstances, it is evident that with regard to present dispute, there is no sanction accorded by the Governor of the State under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations.

18. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.10.2024 and consequential actions taken by the State are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the outstanding amount of leave encashment due to petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 31.01.2023 till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be ensured by the concerned authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. 11 WRIA No. 7845 of 2025

19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 24, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench