STATE OF U P Vs. GOVIND RAM JAISINGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Standing counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Upadhyay, holding brief of Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24. 07. 2008 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow by which the claim petition preferred by opposite party no. 1 against the punishment order dated 14. 04. 2007 was allowed and the punishment order dated 14. 04. 2007 has been quashed, has preferred the instant writ petition. It is admitted case of the parties that the charge sheet dated 12. 09. 2005 was issued to the opposite party no. 1 which was suitably replied by him and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The opposite party no. 1 attained the age of superannuation on 31. 05. 2006. The Disciplinary Authority had passed the punishment order dated 14. 4. 2007 after retirement of the petitioner by which 5% amount from the pension of the opposite party no. 1 was curtailed. The opposite party no. 1 filed claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which was contested by the petitioner by filing the written statement. The State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow after considering the material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has held in paras 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned judgment and order as under: 9. In State of U. P. Vs. Brahm Dutt Sharma, 1987 U. P. L. B. E. C. 282 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that - "if the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is open to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings, and if in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or omission as a result of which Government is put to pecuniary loss, the State Government is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension. " 10. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner was that he was Chairman of an Interview Board and that he did commit cuttings and over- writing and included the name of Sri Chandra Sen by changing his marks whose name was not in the original list. However, the Enquiry Officer did not find the charge of cutting and over-writing or inclusion of his name substantiated. There is no allegation that the State Government was put to any pecuniary loss due to the misconduct of the petitioner. So, when there is no such negligence or misconduct proved on the part of the petitioner which might have caused pecuniary loss to the Government and there is no allegation that there was any pecuniary loss caused to the State Government, there was no question of resorting to exercising the powers under the provisions of Article 351-A of the civil Service Regulations. The enquiry that is contemplated under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations is only an enquiry in regard to misconduct or negligence on the part of the delinquent Government servant which has resulted in a pecuniary loss to the Government and it has become necessary for the Government to recover the same from his pension already hold above, there being no pecuniary loss caused to the State Government by the alleged misconduct or negligence, there was no question of applicability of the provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations and, therefore, resort to the provisions of Article 351-A of Civil Service Regulations could not legally be made. With the result the order of curtailment of pension by 5% is not legally sustainable. The opposite parties do not say that the reduction in pension has been made due to grave misconduct. 11. It has also been submitted that the charge which was levelled against the petitioner was not found proved by the Enquiry Officer but he was punished on another ground for not having adopted proper procedure for giving the marks to the candidates by the Interview Board, whereas, there was no such charge levelled against him. The learned Presenting Officer has submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are incidental to the main charge and it stands covered in the same charge but we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Presenting Officer because there was no such charge that the petitioner adopted a wrong procedure during the course of interview for giving marks to the candidates. The specific charge against him was that he did commit cuttings and over writing in the marks of one Chandra Sen and placed him at serial no. 3 but the Enquiry Officer did not find that charge substantiated and the State Government has also no disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. When the Enquiry Officer had not found charge levelled against the petitioner proved, there was no question of issuance of any show cause notice or punishing the petitioner by curtailment of 5% of his pension. The entire action of the opposite party in proceeding with the enquiry, submission of the enquiry report and in passing of the final punishment order dated 14. 04. 2007, as contained in Annexure No. 7 was legally not sustainable. We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 24. 07. 2008 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow as the alleged misconduct is not of grave nature. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. .