In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, presided over by Justice Alok Mathur, stayed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired government official of the Agricultural Directorate, Uttar Pradesh. The case, WRIT – A No. 275 of 2025, raises important legal questions regarding the limitations on initiating disciplinary actions after retirement and the validity of proceedings commenced years after the alleged misconduct.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Singh, served as Head Assistant in the Agricultural Directorate, Uttar Pradesh, and retired from service on May 31, 2021. Nearly three years after his retirement, the State of Uttar Pradesh initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged irregularities related to an appointment on compassionate grounds during his tenure as Junior Assistant in 2011. The proceedings were backed by a sanction for prosecution obtained on March 27, 2024, and formalized through a charge sheet dated August 14, 2024.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings, arguing that the charges pertained to an incident that occurred over a decade ago and were thus time-barred under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR). This provision limits the initiation of departmental action to events occurring within four years prior to the commencement of such proceedings.
Key Legal Issues
1. Violation of CSR Regulation 351-A: The regulation stipulates that no departmental proceedings can be initiated in respect of an event occurring more than four years before the institution of such action. The petitioner contended that the delay of over 13 years rendered the proceedings legally untenable.
2. Post-Retirement Disciplinary Proceedings: The case also explored the broader issue of whether disciplinary action can justifiably extend into an employee’s retirement for long-past incidents.
3. Reliance on Precedents: The petitioner’s counsel cited the judgment in Dr. Rudra Pratap vs. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 2854 of 2022), where similar proceedings initiated beyond the four-year limitation were quashed. This ruling was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the principle that disciplinary actions must adhere to statutory time limits.
Court Proceedings and Observations
The case was argued by Advs Rajat Rajan Singh and Abhinav Mishra for the petitioner, while Standing Counsel and Abhinav Narayan Trivedi represented the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the charges, linked to an incident from 2011, were far outside the permissible timeframe specified under CSR 351-A. They further argued that initiating proceedings so long after the event, especially post-retirement, was not only procedurally flawed but also unjust.
Justice Alok Mathur, after considering the submissions, made the following key observations:
– “Disciplinary proceedings must be initiated within the time limits prescribed by law. Extending these limits retroactively undermines the fairness and purpose of regulatory safeguards.”
– The court noted that the charge sheet was issued more than 13 years after the alleged incident, far exceeding the four-year limitation under CSR 351-A.
– Referring to the precedent in the Rudra Pratap case, Justice Mathur reiterated that courts must intervene when such procedural lapses occur, particularly in cases where the employee has already superannuated.
Court Directions
In its order dated January 15, 2025, the court stayed the following actions related to the disciplinary proceedings against Rakesh Kumar Singh:
1. The operation of the charge sheet dated August 14, 2024.
2. The execution of orders dated March 27, 2024, and May 8, 2024, which pertained to the sanction and initiation of proceedings.
The court further directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within three weeks, with the petitioner granted an additional two weeks to submit a rejoinder affidavit. The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 3, 2025.
