HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 7845 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging charge- sheet dated 14.10.2024. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties for payment of leave encashment along with interest with effect from 31.01.2023 have also been sought. 3. The Primary ground of challenge raised to the impugned charge-sheet is that the same has been issued subsequent to petitioner's superannuation on 31.01.2023 without due sanction of Governor of the State as contemplated under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. 4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned charge-sheet will make it evident that there is absolutly no recital that the same has been issued after obtaining approval by the Governor in terms of the aforesaid provision and has in fact been issued only after approval by the Principal Secretary of the Department itself. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Srideep Chatterjee, Ashita Mangal Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Neeraj Kumar Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture U.P. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) He has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the case of Dr. Indu Bala Verma versus State of U.P. & Ors. Writ A No.7916 of 2025 as well Division Bench of this Court in the case Z.U. Ansari versus State of U.P & Ors.; 2014 SCC Online Allahabad 15404 as well in the case of Rajnish Kumar Rai versus Union of India & Ors. (2023)14 SCC 782. 5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit dated 23.08.2025 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that at the time of superannuation of petitioner, his laxity in monitoring and supervision of the scheme known as promotion of agricultural mechanization for in- situ management of crop residue was under contemplation and the petitioner was also informed vide letter dated 30.08.2023 with regard to same. It is submitted that allegation against petitioner pertained to the time period 16.07.2021 till 31.07.2023 and memorandum was issued by the State Government on 14.10.2024 in terms of Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations whereafter one Surendra Bahadur Singh was nominated as the Inquiry Officer and the charge-sheet dated 14.10.2024 was duly approved by the State Government and issued to the Delinquent Officer. It is submitted that subsequently the inquiry report has been submitted on 27.12.2024 and is under active consideration of the Government. 6. He has placed reliance on Section 12, Chapter 1 of the Secretariat Rules Collection, Government of U.P. (Secretariat Manual) 2004 as well as paragraph 2 of the U. P. Authentication WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 2 (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules 1975 to submit that the charge-sheet has been issued after due sanction from the State Government and in terms of aforesaid provisions, would be deemed to have been issued by the Governor of the State. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that although neither the counter affidavit nor the impugned order indicates initiation of inquiry proceedings against petitioner after due sanction by the Governor of the State under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations but the opposite parties have taken recourse to the Manual of 2004 and Rules of 1975 to submit that once appropriate sanction has been granted by the State Government, approval by the Governor would be deemed in such situation. 8. The aforesaid aspect has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Z. U. Ansari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 19485 of 2022) in the following manner:- "So far as the Rules of Business, 1975 are concerned, it is admitted to the State that these rules have been framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Article 166 of the Constitution of India deals with the conduct of government business and provides that all executive actions of the Government/State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and it is with reference to these WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 3 actions of the State Government that a power has been conferred upon the Governor to frame the business rules. Article 166 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: Article 166-- (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. (3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business insofar as it is not business with respect to which the /governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion.? We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India operate in a separate field vis-a-vis the conduct of government business under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. They are not overlapping. Therefore, if under the service rules framed under Article 309 of WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 4 the Constitution of India namely the Civil Services Regulations, 1975, it has been provided that sanction of the Governor would be necessary before initiation of the departmental proceedings with the service of the charge sheet upon the retired employee then such sanction has to be that of the Governor and not of the minister with reference to the U.P. Secretariat Instructions 1982 framed under the Rules of Business, 1975. We may also record that the U.P. Secretariat Instructions 1982, Chapter VII only provide that all business allocated to a department under the Rules of Business, 1975 is to be disposed of by or under the General or special directions of the minister in charge (Reference Business Regulations 3). It is, therefore, clear that only such business as allocated to the department under the Rules of Business, 1975 can be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister in charge. Nothing has been demonstrated before us to lead us to accept that the power to sanction the departmental proceedings in respect of a retired government servant has been allocated as a business to be disposed of under the general or special directions of the minister concerned under the Business Regulations. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the sanction of the minister referable to the Business Regulations in WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 5 the facts of the case will not amount to the sanction of the Governor as contemplated by Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, 1975. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent in the case of State of Orissa (Supra), we may record that the same is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the case specifically with reference to the Rules of Business, 1975 of the State of U.P. referred to by us. In absence of sanction of the Governor, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a government servant after his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 27.06.2011 is hereby quashed as also the departmental proceedings initiated thereto against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits with the result of the quashing of the charge-sheet and the departmental proceedings. The State is directed to take appropriate action in that regard within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon the State Government. Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations/direction made herein above." 9. The aforesaid judgment was thereafter challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Z.U. Ansari (supra). Due to a difference WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 6 of opinion, it was referred to a Larger Bench where it is said to be still pending. 10. Nonetheless the aforesaid judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Z.U.Ansari (supra) has thereafter been followed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarita Yadav (supra). 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and others [(2023) 14 SCC 782] has held that till decision from a Larger Bench, it would be against judicial propriety to ignore the judgment under Reference. 12. It is also relevant that as has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner, final report has already been accepted without any challenge thereto. 13. Apart from aforesaid, it is also noticeable that recourse has been taken not only to the Rules of 1975 but the Manual of 2004 as well. The provisions thereof specifically indicate that in case of any orders passed by the Cabinet, Departmental Minister, Deputy Minister, Chief Secretary or other Secretaries of the Government, it would be deemed that the orders have been issued in the name of Governor of the State. 14. The aforesaid provisions of Manual 2004 as well the Rules of 1975 are clearly referable to Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India wherein the Governor of the State being the Chief Executive Officer of the State, all decisions taken by the State WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 7 Government would necessarily be deemed to have been taken in the name of Governor of the State. 15. However with regard to sanction under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, in the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid provisions of Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India would be clearly inapplicable particularly since Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations specifically provides for sanction to be accorded only by the Governor of the State. Provisions of 351 of the Civil Service Regulations are as follows: "Article 351-A The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re- employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment: (i) shall not be instituted save WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 8 with the sanction of the Governor, (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re- employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and (c) the Public Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation- For the purposes of this Article- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings on the date on which a complaint is made, or a charge- WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 9 sheet is submitted to a criminal court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings on the date on which the plaint is presented, or as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. Note- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this Article are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned." 16. It is thus quite evident that once power of sanctioned Article 351A has been specifically conferred upon Governor of the State, the deeming provisions under the Manual of 2004 and Rules of 1975 would be inapplicable. 17. In such circumstances, it is evident that with regard to present dispute, there is no sanction accorded by the Governor of the State under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. 18. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned charge-sheet dated 14.10.2024 and consequential actions taken by the State are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay the outstanding amount of leave encashment due to petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 31.01.2023 till the date of actual payment. Such payment shall be ensured by the concerned authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 10 19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 24, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 7845 of 2025 11 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench