Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings cannot continue or yield punishment without prior Governor sanction under Regulation 351-A.

The petitioner, appointed as a Junior Clerk in 1970 and later promoted as Senior Clerk, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated on 11 August 2005.

His requests for relevant documents were not supplied, and an ex parte enquiry report was submitted on 30 October 2006.

He retired on 31 March 2008 while the proceedings remained pending, but his retiral and pensionary benefits were withheld.

The disciplinary authority subsequently passed orders imposing punishment, including retrospective removal from service and later permanent withholding of 50% of his pension.

These orders were set aside in successive proceedings because the mandatory sanction under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations had not been obtained.

The State’s challenge to the Tribunal’s decision was dismissed by the Lucknow Bench of the High Court on 15 January 2014, and the disciplinary proceedings were thereafter terminated for want of sanction.

Despite this, the Director of Social Welfare passed the impugned order dated 15 January 2015, reducing the petitioner’s pension by two-thirds and directing recovery of ₹36,98,603, without demonstrating that the Governor had sanctioned continuation or institution of proceedings under Regulation 351-A.

The Court applied Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, under which the Governor reserves the power to withhold or withdraw pension or order recovery of pecuniary loss caused by a pensioner’s grave misconduct, but departmental proceedings not instituted before retirement may be instituted only with the Governor’s sanction and must concern an event occurring within four years before institution.

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey, (1996) 9 SCC 395, holding that pending disciplinary proceedings do not automatically continue after retirement and require prior sanction under Regulation 351-A.

It also relied on Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, (1999) 3 SCC 666, which established that, absent statutory authority, disciplinary proceedings lapse on superannuation and retiral benefits cannot be reduced.

The Division Bench decision in Harihar Bhole Nath Misra v. State Public Services Tribunal was followed for the principle that a departmental enquiry cannot proceed after retirement unless sanction under Regulation 351-A is obtained and the enquiry is conducted in accordance with that provision.

The Court found that the petitioner had retired on 31 March 2008 while the disciplinary proceedings were pending.

Under Regulation 351-A, retirement altered the legal character of the proceedings: they could not continue automatically merely because they had been initiated during service.

The prior punishment orders had already been quashed, and the State’s challenge to that determination had been dismissed, making the finding regarding absence of sanction final.

Since neither the impugned order nor the State’s pleadings established that the Governor had granted the requisite sanction for continuation or fresh institution of proceedings, the Director lacked authority to impose a pension reduction or order recovery.

The repeated attempt to punish the petitioner on the basis of the same unresolved proceedings was therefore contrary to Regulation 351-A and the binding precedents cited by the Court.

The respondents were directed to release all retiral dues payable to the petitioner, together with interest at 8% per annum, within eight weeks from production of the certified copy of the judgment.

If payment was not made within that period, interest would accrue at 12% per annum.