The court affirms that, following prior Board sanction, disciplinary inquiry and recovery orders under Rule 351-A can be lawfully initiated and concluded after an officer’s retirement, where loss to government is established; calculation methodology, if undisputed, cannot be challenged on grounds of other officers’ involvement unless supported by substantial material. This decision reinforces existing precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh government service matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WRIA/10747/2025 of KEDAR NATH SHARMA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS |
| CNR | UPHC013759212025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Writ Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established application of Rule 351-A |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Disciplinary Proceedings, Recovery for Departmental Loss) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Application of Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulations and relevant government orders regarding recovery for departmental loss. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a retired Divisional Accountant, was subjected to a departmental inquiry post-retirement with Board sanction, for alleged failure of duty and unauthorized diversion of scheme funds, resulting in a loss. First charge not proved; second charge (unauthorized diversion/loss) proved. Recovery of Rs. 11.42 lakhs (30% of loss) ordered and confirmed in appeal. Petitioner contended another officer was responsible, citing a District Magistrate’s report; this was not accepted by the court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, in similar post-retirement disciplinary matters |
| Follows | Previous applications of Rule 351-A (as per judgment’s affirmation) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Court reaffirms that post-retirement disciplinary proceedings and recovery orders are valid under Rule 351-A when sanctioned by the Board.
- Opportunity to defend in inquiry and undisputed calculation of loss will uphold department’s recovery orders.
- Attributing blame to others without substantial proof (e.g., mere correspondence or report) is insufficient to discharge the charged officer.
- Lawyers should note the limits on challenging recovery orders where inquiry procedure and quantification are not specifically contested.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the mandatory requirement of Board sanction under Rule 351-A before initiating post-retirement proceedings; found such sanction present.
- Emphasized that the inquiry process offered the petitioner due opportunity (reply to charge sheet, participation in inquiry), thus fulfilling natural justice requirements.
- Analysis focused on the proved misconduct of unauthorized fund diversion and that loss calculation was not disputed by the petitioner.
- The court held that a mere District Magistrate’s report shifting blame, without substantial supporting material, could not outweigh the inquiry’s findings.
- Confirmed the applicability of government orders (17.12.2016) prescribing recovery percentages for established losses.
- Found no basis for interference where the findings, quantum of loss, and procedure were unchallenged on merits.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Cited District Magistrate’s report attributing responsibility for loss to a different officer.
- Did not dispute calculation or reasoning of loss, but challenged recovery based on attribution of fault.
Respondent (State)
- Defended validity of post-retirement inquiry under Rule 351-A and presence of Board sanction.
- Asserted inquiry was held per legal provisions with natural justice observed.
- Emphasized that second charge (monetary loss by unauthorized diversion) was duly proved and calculation of loss not successfully challenged by petitioner.
Factual Background
Petitioner, who retired as Divisional Accountant on 1.7.2020, was subjected to departmental inquiry post-retirement after Board sanction under Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulations. Allegations involved failure to effectively execute drinking water schemes and unauthorized diversion of departmental funds, causing financial loss. The first charge (inefficiency) was not proved; the second (unauthorized diversion/loss of ~Rs. 38 lakhs) was found proved. The department ordered recovery of Rs. 11.42 lakhs (30% of the loss); petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. The petitioner relied on a District Magistrate report blaming another officer, but this was not accepted by the court.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations: Interpreted as allowing departmental proceedings—including recovery for departmental loss—post-retirement, provided prior Board sanction is obtained.
- Relevant government order (dated 17.12.2016): Provides calculation method for fixing officer’s liability (e.g., 30% of total determined loss for responsible officer).
- Principles of natural justice in inquiry: The court affirmed that procedural requirements, including opportunity to reply and be heard, were followed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law under Rule 351-A regarding post-retirement disciplinary action and recovery reaffirmed.
Citations
No case law citations or neutral citations are provided in the judgment text.