MAHENDRA SINGH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of his employment, the petitioner was posted in the office of the District Horticulture Officer, Moradabad as Assistant Horticulture Inspector. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him for which a charge sheet was served upon him. He was placed under suspension on 20.8.1986. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to probe the charges. While the enquiry was under process, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 19.1.1987. The disciplinary proceeding are stated to have continued for petty long time. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings the petitioner was superannuated on 30.9.1999.

(2.) The petitioner was served a copy of the show cause notice by the Enquiry Officer on 16.9.2001. He was required to file his objection to the same. After receipt of the objections, the impugned order dated 6.3.2003 was passed holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. As a consequence of which 5% pensionary benefits were required to be deducted from his pension and his period of suspension was treated as on duty. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner as there was no evidence to support the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He further contends that after retirement, departmental proceedings could not have continued against him as there is no provision which provides continuance of the departmental proceedings after the retirement of the employee. Lastly, it is contended that there is no provision under the U.P.Government Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (in short as the 'Rules') to impose a penalty for recovery to be made from the post retirement emoluments of a retired employee.