Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22764 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4366 of 2006 Petitioner :- Shankar Nath Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prn.Secy.Public Works And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Hemant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order No.1358/Misc. Advance dated 02.05.2006 issued by the opposite party no. 4 vis-a-vis recovery citation issued against the petitioner by the opposite party nos.6 and 7 after summoning the same (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) ; (ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties nos.1 and 2 to forthwith take legal action against the opposite parties no.3, 4 and 5 and initiate legal inquiry for verifying the illegal harassment of the petitioner by them after summoning the detailed record from opposite parties no.3, 4 and 5." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Junior Engineer (Mechanical) from U.P. Public Works Department on 31.08.2001. The retirement notice was given to the petitioner and all the formalities regarding No Dues Certificate etc., prior to the retirement was completed and thereafter he was allowed to retire by the Department and no proceeding was pending against him. After for more than five years from the date of retirement i.e. on 02.05.2006, the impugned order/recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner requiring him to deposit Rs.89,962.25. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has retired from service and no departmental proceeding was ever initiated then after more than five years, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of Civil Services Regulations 351-A, the departmental proceedings cannot be done after four years from the date of retirement and even prior to date of retirement, permission is to be taken by the Government but in the instant case, no procedure was ever adopted and Department has illegally issued recovery certificate against the petitioner. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in Mahendra Singh Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (4) ADJ 101. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under : "Similar view has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and another vs. Public Services Tribunal U.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) ADJ 11 (DB). After age of superannuation, disciplinary proceeding can not go on, in absence of any specific provisions ; (iii) respondent entitled to post-retiral benefits, as well as arrears of salary (minus subsistence allowance paid to him). However, he was not entitled to any interest on amount payable to him. There is second aspect of the matter that the penalty in the shape of recovery from the post retirement benefits cannot be imposed in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999. While scanning through the Rules, there is no provision for recovery of the amount from the pension of an employee." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken specific ground in para 13 of the writ petition that the petitioner was never informed nor any notice or explanation was ever called either during service period or after retirement. 7. Per contra, in para 6 of the counter affidavit, there is no specific denial that any departmental proceeding or show cause notice was ever instituted by the Department against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has joined services in the month of July, 1993 in Provincial Division, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Sitapur and Misc. advance to the tune of Rs. 72,054.35 was opened in his name but as the petitioner had not adjusted the said amount as such the Executive Engineer and the concerned Assistant Engineer directed him to adjust the same during the period of his posting. Likewise, in the months of March,1994, June, 1997 and January, 1998 respectively, cheques amounting to Rs.5830 in favour of M/s Laxmi Service Station, Sitapur ; Rs.9,941.90 in favour of M/s. A. Autometers, Lucknow and Rs.2581.00 in favour of M/s. New Punjay Battery, Sitapur, were got issued by the petitioner but he had not submitted any bills for the adjustment. Thus, total amount of Rs.90,402.25 remains un-adjusted as miscellaneous advance in favour of the Petitioner and for depositing the said amount, the letter dated 02.05.2006 was issued to the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that the since the advance was not adjusted by the petitioner and dues were pending against him and therefore, the Department had issued the notice to recover the said amount. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Department. 10. After hearing both the parties, it is apparent that after five years and nine months from the date of retirement, the impugned order of recovery has been passed. The notice for retirement was given to him; thereafter he retired and No Dues was cleared but after five years nine months, this proceeding is totally unjust and unfair. 11. It is a settled law that after retirement, there is no relationship of employer and employee and in the present case, it is evident that more than five years had elapsed from the date of retirement therefore, there is no question to give liberty to the Department to proceed against the petitioner. Even Regulation 351 A will not be applicable in the present case. It is further evident that no such procedure for taking permission from the Governor was adopted. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.05.2006 passed by respondent no.4 is quashed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench