In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has ruled that the sanction required under Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations (CSR) for initiating departmental proceedings against a retired government employee can only be granted by the Governor and not by any other authority. The court quashed the charge sheet and departmental proceedings initiated against Smt. Sarita Yadav, a retired Administrative Officer from the Directorate of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, citing lack of proper sanction.
Background of the Case
The case involved a writ petition (WRIT – A No. 393 of 2025) filed by Smt. Sarita Yadav against the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Additional Chief Secretary/Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, and three others. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rajat Rajan Singh along with Advocate Abhinav Mishra, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Abhinav Trivedi and the Chief Standing Counsel (C.S.C.).
The petitioner had retired on November 30, 2021, and was served a charge sheet dated August 14, 2024, nearly three years after her superannuation. The allegations pertained to appointments made on compassionate grounds during her tenure as a Senior Assistant in 2012 and a separate charge from 2021. The departmental proceedings were initiated following sanction obtained on March 27, 2024, from the Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Whether sanction under Article 351-A of the CSR must be explicitly granted by the Governor or can be authenticated by other authorities under Article 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution.
2. Whether departmental proceedings can be validly initiated against a retired government employee without the Governor’s approval.
3. Interpretation of past judgments, particularly the Division Bench ruling in Z.U. Ansari v. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 19485 of 2012), which had held that sanction for post-retirement departmental proceedings must come directly from the Governor.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
Justice Alok Mathur delivered the judgment, emphasizing that under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, the power to grant sanction for post-retirement disciplinary proceedings is explicitly reserved for the Governor. The court observed:
“The Governor reserves to himself the right of liberty for withdrawing the pension or any part of it. If the intention of the legislature was that the sanction had to be given by the State, the provisions of Article 351-A would have been worded differently. The language of the provision clearly indicates that the approval must come directly from the Governor.”
The respondents had relied on Articles 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution, which deal with the authentication of executive actions. However, the court rejected this argument, holding that the delegation of power through authentication does not override the explicit requirement under Regulation 351-A of CSR.
The High Court also referred to the Division Bench ruling in Z.U. Ansari v. State of U.P., which had clarified that the service rules under Article 309 of the Constitution operate in a separate field from the government’s business rules framed under Article 166. The court stated:
“If under the Civil Services Regulations, it is mandated that the sanction of the Governor is necessary, then such sanction must be directly given by the Governor and not by any other authority, including a minister or the Special Secretary.”
Final Order
Based on these findings, the court ruled that since the Governor’s sanction had not been obtained, the charge sheet dated August 14, 2024, and the impugned orders dated March 27, 2024, and May 8, 2024, were quashed.
The court further held that the State Government is free to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the law, provided it obtains the required sanction from the Governor.
