Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40118-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7495 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Forest And Wild Animal Deptt. Lko. And Another Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. (1) Heard Shri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the petitioners. (2) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the judgment/order dated 19.07.2023 rendered by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1200 of 2018, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.97,971/- has been allowed. (3) Undisputedly, the charge-sheet was issued against the respondent prior to his retirement under Rule 7 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules 1999'] i.e. for a major penalty. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent is stated to have attained the age of superannuation. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings which were instituted prior to his retirement continued against him. The mere retirement of the respondent on attaining the age of superannuation did not absolve the State to authorities to observe the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 and the pending disciplinary action had to be culminated by following the due procedure under law. (4) The Tribunal after exchange of the pleadings and on consideration of the rival contentions in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment has observed as under:- "In the light of above judicial pronouncement, I am of the view that since the procedure laid down for enquiry in the matter of major penalties was not followed by the enquiry officer hence entire proceedings of enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is vitiated being in violation of the rules of natural justice and mandatory rules of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999." (5) On a pointed query made to the learned State Counsel as to whether there is any anomaly or perversity which the observations made by the Tribunal in the para extracted above suffers from, it was replied that the enquiry proceedings as per the record did not adhere to the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 and to this extent, the State does not dispute the position according to the records available. (6) Learned counsel for the State has, however, argued that the Tribunal while adjudicating upon the lis has partly considered the provisions of Article 351A of Civil Services Regulations (CSR) which were not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (7) This Court would have weighed the force of to submissions on such a premise provided the learned Tribunal had allowed the claim petition on this ground alone. Once the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the State in response to what has been recorded in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment is dis-satisfactory and it is admitted that the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules 1999 was not followed, there is no escape from the conclusion that the proceedings for recovery stood vitiated in the eyes of law on this ground alone. Reference to any further submission made by the Tribunal would be of no consequence. Thus, being satisfied on the point of legal position recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition being bereft of merit deserves rejection. (8) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. . (Shree Prakash Sing, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 14.7.2025 akhilesh/- Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench