RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner inter alia praying that the Court may issue a direction for quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.1996 (Annexure No. 18) passed by State Public Services Tribunal and simultaneously he has also prayed that the order dated 19.03.1988 passed by the opposite party no. 3, Superintending Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Lucknow (Annexure No. 11) for the recovery of Rs. 2,67,667.84 paise from the petitioner be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to pay full pensionary benefits as admissible under Rules be issued..

(2.) The brief facts in the petition are that the petitioner was posted on the post of Junior Engineer in the year 1960 and superannuated from service on 31.01.1986. The dispute is regarding the post retiral dues; a show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 06.07.1997 and he was explain as to why the amount be not recovered from him because shortage of material. It is contended that the provisions of Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulation have not been followed. The petitioner repeatedly submitted that he could not peruse the documents by which the recovery is being directed as he retired from service on the prior date. The order of the recovery dated 19.03.1988, therefore is per se illegal. The basis of the petitioner's contention is that there is specific provision under Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulation that no proceedings can be initiated after the superannuation without seeking prior permission of His Excellency The Governor and that to regarding the incident which happened four years earlier the retirement. In the instant matter, the recovery relates to period which is beyond the four years. Therefore, in any circumstances the recovery is altogether baseless void and illegal. The payment of pension / gratuity of Government servant cannot be withheld merely on account of any enquiry pending against him. The Government has issued execution direction in the matter of grant of pension and gratuity to the retired Government servant contained in G.O. No. G-3-1555/X-909-79 dated 30.09.1982 which provide no departmental / judicial proceedings or any enquiry or Administrative Tribunal has been instituted against the Government servant, he shall be paid full pension gratuity admissible under Rules. Till his retirement no enquiry was instituted against him. Despite making several representations dated 02.09.1986 and 05.04.1988 his pension was not released. The action of the opposite parties are arbitrary without rules. The opposite party no. 3 issued show cause notice only on 06.07.1987 requiring him to furnish his explanation towards shortage of stock and T & P detected against him. The petitioner submitted that through reply that these items has never been received by him. The petitioner was not shown relevant papers and the opposite party no. 3 did not go through his proper replies and passed an arbitrary order for recovery of Rs. 2,67,667.84/- and withheld his post retiral dues. The petitioner preferred a claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal but the Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner retired on 31.01.1986 and show cause notice was issued to him on 06.07.1986. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the shortage of stock and T & P came into the light in the year 1981 and immediately thereafter the show cause was given to explain the shortages. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner that the enquiry was instituted after the retirement and related the matter with effect from 1981. The Tribunal opined that the matter was pending since 1981 and there was continuous probe going on since then. The Tribunal was of the opinion that if the services of the employees are not satisfactory his pension can be reduced but since ten years have passed the Tribunal granted relief in part and directed that the pension should be paid to the petitioner but dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) The opposite parties submitted the counter affidavit and reiterated that the petitioner was asked to explain on 23.07.1981 regarding lost of items and he could not furnish any defence and could not explain as to why there was shortage of articles. The allegation of the petitioner that no enquiry is pending is baseless. He was probed regarding lost of items since 1981 much before his retirement. Since the proceeding were pending, benefits except reduced pension were withheld due pending recovery of the value of the Government stock and T & P detected against the petitioner. The petitioner contention to the contrary are false, the petitioner could not justify as to any item regarding which show cause notice was given to him. Hence, there was no need to permission under section 351-A of Civil Services Regulation since the enquiry initiated as back as 1981.