The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Civil Service Regulations stipulate the procedure for initiating action against a retired Government servant, and superannuation does not confer absolute independence from the charges or the allegations, if any, levelled for the work discharged during the service period by a government servant.
The Court emphasised that to curb the rapidly increasing corrupt practices in Government Departments, to extend facilitation or favouritism for some vested reasons, no immunity should be accorded even to a retired person, and it should be open for the public or its representatives to reveal any ignorance of a government servant, whether retired or in service, in discharge of his/ her official duties.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that the limitation to move an application/complaint for any alleged laxity in the discharge of official duty during the service period by any Government servant is elucidated in proviso (a)(ii) to Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which says that departmental proceedings, if not instituted, while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.
However, the Bench clarified that the respondent department authorities are not restrained from asking the petitioner in regard to alleged irregularities committed by him.
The Bench also negated the submission advanced by counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is the brother-in-law of a sitting MLA, and hence, the proceedings are under the influence of a political motive, while observing that a public representative plays a crucial role in society, and thus, every complaint cannot be termed as politically motivated.
Though the complaint is not made by the MLA himself, even otherwise, any such complaint wherein the work assigned has been ignored by the person concerned (Government servant), moved by any person, be a public representative, could have been entertained, added the Bench.
The Bench, therefore, dismissed the petition, while concluding that the allegations made in the complaint against a government servant cannot be ignored on the ground that they have been made by a public representative or his relative.
Briefly, before the retirement of the petitioner in June 2025, who was serving as a Technical Junior Engineer, a complaint was moved against him before the Speaker, Vidhan Sabha, alleging various irregularities in the discharge of duties between 2015 to 2022. This was fortified by the inquiry report of the District Magistrate.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Prabhakar Awasthi and Advocate Lavkush Singh, for the Petitioner
Advocates Abhishek Srivastava and Rishi Kumar, for the Respondent
