BHAGWATI PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The questions that arise for consideration in this petition filed by a retired Government servant are whether Gratuity can be withheld or forfeited under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations; whether payment of Gratuity can be stopped under the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and the Uttar Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961, without initiating proceedings under the aforesaid rules; whether the enquiry suffered for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and whether permanent curtailment of 5% pension under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations was arbitrary and contrary to law?

(2.) THE petitioner was selected and appointed in 1964 by the Public Service Commission, U. P. as a teacher in Government Inter College. He was promoted as lecturer in 1974. In 1991 he was promoted to the post of Vice Principal. In 1994 he was promoted on the post of District Non Formal Education Officer and was posted at Allahabad. He retired from service on 31st July, 1996. After about two years of superannuation the Governor on 22-6-1998 granted sanction for institution of disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (in brief the Regulations ). Shri Shyam Narain Rai, Director of Education III, Allahabad was appointed as enquiry officer. THE enquiry officer sent a charge- sheet dated 22-6-1998 on four counts. It was served on the petitioner on 14-7-1998. THE petitioner submitted his reply on 28-7-1998. THE enquiry officer submitted the report dated 31-8-1998 on 12-10- 1998. A copy of the enquiry report, as directed by the State Government, was sent on 4-5-2001 to the petitioner by Joint Director of Education, Allahabad Region. He by another letter dated 23-8-2001 asked the petitioner to submit his representation to the enquiry report. THE petitioner made a representation on 4-9-2001. THE enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the first charge. He found him guilty of second and third charge and the fourth charge was found to be technically proved. THE State Government acting on the report of enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and directed under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations that the payment of gratuity to the petitioner should be stopped and an amount of 25% of the pension payable to the petitioner be deducted and referred the matter to the Commission for its opinion. THE Commission agreeing with the view of the State Government that gratuity payable to the petitioner should be stopped, recommended that instead of 25% only 5% of the pension amount be deducted. THEreafter the State Government passed the impugned order dated 3-5-2002, directing that petitioner's gratuity be stopped and 5% deduction be made from his pension permanently. However, the other post retiral benefits were released to the petitioner. THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-5-2002 by means of this Writ Petition.

(3.) IN the supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 21-5-2007 and filed on 25-5-2007 in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it is admitted that no date of enquiry was fixed. Neither the petitioner was summoned to participate in enquiry nor he was heard. It is, however, stated that the enquiry officer while serving the charge-sheet had clearly mentioned that the petitioner may indicate the evidence he proposed to rely and whether he desired oral hearing. What was the effect of it in the enquiry and whether it was sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice would be discussed by us a little later while considering whether the impugned order suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.