STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus HARIHAR BHOLE NATH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 01-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
HARIHAR BHOLE NA TH 
NOVEMBER I, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary proceedings-Misconduct by employee causing financial 
loss to Government-Punishment imposed-Direction given to recover loss C 
from pension/gratuity payable to employee-Plea by employee that though 
he was suspended during service, actual enquiry began after retirement, 
hence it was necessary to obtain sanction of Governor-Tenability of-Held, 
not tenable-Enquiry was initiated before retirement, and by the Governor 
himself even though it actually started after superannuation-No sanction of D 
Governor was required for continuing proceedings which had already been 
initiated-Civil Service Regulations-Regulations 351 A and 470-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 166(3). 
Respondent w~ charged with commission of misconduct involving gross 
irregularities causing financial loss to the Government. On preliminary E' 
enquiry a charge-sheet was served on him and an Enquiry Officer was 
appointed. He was placed under suspension under the orders of the Governor. 
On a writ petition filed by Respondent questioning legality of the order 
of suspension, High Court stayed the operation thereof. During pendency of 
the said writ petition, Respondent retired from service. Departmental Enquiry F 
1 
was commenced four years after retirement. A report was submitted by the 
Enquiry Officer, pursuant whereto the Competent Authority issued show cause 
notice. As Respondent, did not submit any reply, the Competent Authority 
decided to recover the amount of monetary loss caused to the Government 
Exchequer by reason of various acts of omissions on his part from the amount G 
of gratuity and pension payable to Respondent as also from his movable and 
immoveable assets. 
Questioning the said order of recovery, Respondent filed application 
before the State Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed. Consequently 
241 
H. 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A he filed writ petition which the High court allowed holding that before a 
departmental proceeding is initiated against a Government servant after his 
retirement, it was obligatory on the part of Appellants to obtain sanction of 
the Governor. Hence the present appeal 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A departmental proceeding can be initiated for recovery of 
amount suffered by the State Exchequer owing to the acts of omission or 
commission of a delinquent employee in three different situations (i) When a 
disciplinary proceeding is initiated and concluded against a delinquent 
C employee before he.reaches his age of superannuation; (ii) When a proceeding 
is initiated before the delinquent officer reached his age of superannuation 
but the same has not been concluded and despite superannuation of the 
employee, an order of recovery of the amount from the pension and gratuity 
is passed; and m/ An enquiry is initiated after the delinquent employee reaches 
his age of superannuation. (248-A-CJ 
D 
2. Civil Service Regulations are framed in terms of the proviso appended 
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Regulations 351-A and 470 of the 
Civil Service Regulations take care of the situation leading to recovery of 
the amount suffered by the Government from the amount of pension and 
E gratuity payable to a delinquent employee whei: he is found guilty of 
commission of miscond1Jct or negligence causing pecuniary loss to the 
Government. (248-D-E) 
3.l. Respondent was placeti under suspension before he reached his age 
of superannuation. The order of suspension, however, remained stayed by a 
F judicial order. But the same paled into in~ignificance once the employee 
reach<=d the age of superannuation. Hy reason of the same, however, the legal 
fiction created in regard to the point of time when the enquiry proceeding 
would be deemed to have commenced was not effaced: (250-B-q 
G 
3.2. Only because the enquiry proceeding was actually stared after 
H 
superannuation of Respondent, the same would not mean the enquiry 
proceeding had not been initiated. The right to initiate proceedings which 
would include a right to continue the proceedings was with the Governor. 
Sanction of the Governor is required to be obtained when proceedings are 
initiated by an Authority other than the Governor. (250-D-E} 
STA TE OF U.P. v. HARIHAR BHOLE NATH 
.243 
4. The proceedings for recovery of the amount from a Government A 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.