HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 10747 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1.Heard Sri Krishna Murari Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Om, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner got retired from the post of Divisional Accountant on 1.7.2020. 3. Subsequently, after taking sanction from the Board in terms of Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, a departmental proceeding was initiated and vide order dated 29.8.2023, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on two grounds firstly, he failed to discharge his duties diligently and failed to carry out drinking water schemes effectively and secondly, unauthorised diversion of money from one scheme to other non-sanctioned scheme has caused loss to the respondents. 4. After inquiry, first charge was found not proved, however, second charge was proved that due to unauthorised diversion of money from one scheme to other non-sanctioned scheme has caused loss to the department of about Rs.38 lacs and in terms of Government Order dated 17.12.2016, 30 percent of the said amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner i.e. Rs.11.42 lakhs by the impugned order dated 28.10.2024. The Appeal thereof was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not able to dispute the calculation made in the impugned order as well as the reasons assigned for such calculation, however by placing reliance on a report dated 14.10.2019 submitted by the District Magistrate, he states that entire Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Murari Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Om Kedar Nath Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) responsibility for such loss was on Sri A.K Singh, the then Assistant Engineer, but the said report was not taken note of. Calculation made in the impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: "क) व्ययवितत धनरािश - रू0 508.03 लाख (ख) अन्य खण्डों को पाइप की िबकी कर प्राप्त की गयी धनरािश - रू0 484.04 लाख (ग) व्ययवितत धनरािश (क-ख) रू0 23.99 लाख (घ) खण्ड कायार्लय की मांग के अनुसार योजनाओं के अवशेष कायोर् की लागत रू0 321.84 लाख (च) तकनीकी सिमित द्वारा व्ययवितत धनरािश से कय की गयी सामग्री का वतर्मान मूल्यांकन - रू0 307.77 लाख (छ) अवशेष कायोर्ं को पूणर् कराने हेतु अितिरक्त धनरािश की आवश्यकता (घ-च) - रू0 14.07 लाख (ज) कु ल िवत्तीय हािन (ग +छ) - रू0 38.06 लाख" 6. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that inquiry was conducted in terms of relevant provisions, principles of natural justice was followed and the second charge was found proved on basis of material and petitioner is not able to contradict the manner of calculation. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 8. As referred above, after taking sanction and permission from the Board, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner after he got retired 1.7.2020 in terms of adopted Rule 351-A of Civil Services Regulations, therefore there is no illegality in conducting the inquiry after retirement of the petitioner. 9. Petitioner was granted opportunity to submit his reply to the charge- sheet. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report on basis of which the impugned order was passed. 10. As referred above, petitioner has not disputed that funds were diverted to a non-sanctioned scheme and material purchased for non-sanctioned scheme was therefore, sold, but on lesser amount, therefore, huge loss was caused. WRIA No. 10747 of 2025 2 11. Calculation for determining loss mentioned above is not disputed, therefore, only on ground that a communication from District Magistrate which does not have substantial material that some other officer was responsible for the loss caused, no interference can be caused since in the present case charge no.2 was proved against the petitioner after conducting a proper inquiry, therefore, on basis of above discussion since the loss as determined is not much under dispute and petitioner being Divisional Accountant was responsible for unauthorised diversion of money from one scheme to other non-sanctioned scheme, therefore, in view of relevant circular, direction of recovery was rightly passed against the petitioner to the tune of 30 percent of the total loss. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. September 3, 2025 SB WRIA No. 10747 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad