RISHISH NARAIN SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The Judgment and Order dated 9.7.2008 is under review. The Superintending Engineer passed a punishment order directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 19,000/- and odd from the post-retiral dues of the applicant-petitioner. This order was passed on 21.1.1992, whereas the petitioner was to retire on 31.1.1992. The petitioner-applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. where his claim was rejected against which he filed the present petition, which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench consisting one of us (Rajiv Sharma, J.) and Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J. who has since retired. The fact that the disciplinary authority, namely, the Superintending Engineer passed the punishment order for recovery on 21.1.1992, as the petitioner was going to retire on 31.1.1992, is not disputed and therefore, recovery of punishment of an amount of Rs.19,000/- and odd from the post-retiral dues could not have been passed by the Superintending Engineer, though he was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, when he was in service. After retirement, any punishment order may be of recovery or like nature ordering deductions to be made from the post-retiral dues could have been passed only by drawing the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 351-A of Civil Service Regulations. Any such order could have been passed by the Governor and that too by following the prescribed procedure. We, therefore, allow the Review Petition and recall the judgment and order dated 9.7.2008. In view of the aforesaid legal position and mistake apparent on the judgment and order, we do not find any reason to keep the matter pending any further. The impugned recovery order has been passed without authority and the petitioner having retired from service in the year 1992, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 21.1.1992.