The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a series of recovery orders amounting to over Rs. 11 lakh issued against a retired school Principal. The Court ruled that authorities cannot order post-retirement recovery based solely on a preliminary fact-finding inquiry. For any such recovery, initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings after obtaining explicit permission from the Governor under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations is a mandatory requirement of the law.
Background of the Case
The case, representing a second round of litigation, involves the petitioner, Surendra Dutt Kaushik, who retired as Principal of an institution on March 31, 2021. Following his retirement, authorities alleged that he had embezzled approximately Rs. 11.14 lakh pertaining to the Mid-Day Meal Scheme (food security allowance and food grains) during the COVID-19 period.
In the first round of litigation (Writ-A No. 9948 of 2023), a Coordinate Bench of the High Court delivered a judgment on December 15, 2023, setting aside the initial recovery orders passed in May 2023. The Court had noted that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement. It further held that the inquiry conducted post-retirement was “at best it can be said to be a fact finding inquiry other than a departmental inquiry.” While the Court directed the release of post-retiral benefits, it granted the State liberty to recover the allegedly embezzled amount “if it is permissible under any provision of law.”
Following this judgment, the District Basic Education Officer, Baghpat, sought permission to initiate an inquiry under Article 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations. Subsequently, the Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a communication on November 7, 2025, stating a decision had been taken to recover the amount from the petitioner under Article 351-A. Based on this letter, the Additional Director of Pension and Treasury, Meerut Region, and the Senior Treasury Officer, Baghpat, passed consequential recovery orders in December 2025 and January 2026.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Awadh Narain Rai, argued that the State respondents failed to comply with the earlier Court judgment. He contended that the respondents proceeded merely on the basis of the old fact-finding inquiry and a purported permission under Article 351-A, without ever conducting a fresh departmental inquiry. Furthermore, he argued that the permission communicated on November 7, 2025, was granted by the State, whereas Article 351-A explicitly requires the sanction of the Governor, rendering the entire proceeding bad in law.
Representing the State, the Standing Counsel and Advocate Arjun Prasad Yadav supported the impugned orders. They submitted that the permission granted under Article 351-A was in consonance with the Governor’s authority and that since the earlier inquiry had already established the embezzlement of Rs. 11 lakh in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, the recovery order was passed.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery examined the proceedings in light of the earlier Coordinate Bench judgment, which strictly categorized the previous inquiry as merely a fact-finding exercise and not a formal disciplinary proceeding.
The Court outlined the correct legal procedure required to act against a retired employee, observing: “The due process of law would be that concerned respondent firstly has to take permission from the Governor as required under Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations and subsequently to initiate disciplinary proceedings, i.e., by submitting a charge sheet.” The Court noted that the earlier fact-finding inquiry report “could only be considered a basis to pursue the Governor to grant permission under Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations.”
Justice Shamshery highlighted two glaring irregularities in the State’s approach:
- Improper Permission: The Court found that the November 2025 communication from the Special Secretary “cannot be construed a permission granted by Governor since contents of it does not reflect so.” Consequently, “in absence of a legal permission under Article 351A no disciplinary proceedings can be commenced against the petitioner after his retirement.”
- Lack of Fresh Inquiry: The Court observed that the respondents failed to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet, and instead unlawfully relied on the older fact-finding inquiry to order the recovery.
Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated November 7, 2025, December 18, 2025, and January 13, 2026. The writ petition was disposed of with the Court granting liberty to the respondents to proceed strictly in accordance with the law and the directions issued in the prior 2023 judgment.
Concluding the order, Justice Shamshery observed: “Since allegations are very serious against petitioner, i.e., embezzlement of about Rs. 11 lacs, therefore, concerned respondent ought to have taken an endeavour to conduct fresh inquiry even after petitioner’s retirement in accordance with law and for that there are provisions and this Court has already permitted respondents to act in accordance with law after taking permission of the Governor under Article 351A of Civil Service Regulations.”
- Case Title: Surendra Dutt Kaushik vs. State of U.P. and others
- Case Number: WRIT – A No. 2353 of 2026
