HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 17608 of 2009 Court No. - 34 Sl. No. 56 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Shri Jagdish Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ekta Kaur learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to 6 and Shri Dileep Kumar Kesharwani learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.12.2002 whereby after due departmental inquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter final order was passed and the recovery of Rs. 1,45,450/- was ordered against the petitioner. The said order has been sought to be challenged by the petitioner after about more than 8 years in the instant petition. Though in the said order dated 24.12.2002 it was provided that the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in equal installments of Rs. 2,909/- per month however it appears that the said recovery was not made from the salary of the petitioner and after the retirement of the petitioner the said amount has been deducted from the leave encashment amount payable to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was working as Monitory Accountant and later promoted to the post of Senior Accountant, Assistant Account Officer Grade 2 and Assistant Account Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jagdish Chandra Sharma, K.D. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ekta Kaur Sita Ram Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) Officer Grade 1 and has retired from the post of Accounts Officer on 31.03.2005. With regard to certain irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was in service, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in which the charge sheet was issued on 22.10.1999 which was replied by the petitioner on 14.12.1999 thereupon the inquiry was concluded against the petitioner. Thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after due response of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 24.12.2002 the recovery was ordered against the petitioner. The said order dated 24.12.2002 was never challenged by the petitioner before the appropriate authority at the relevant time nor the recovery pursuant to the said order was made till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. After the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,45,450/- has been recovered from the leave encashment amount payable to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various objections with regard to the impugned order dated 24.12.2002 stating that the liability against the petitioner has been wrongly fixed by the department and therefore no recovery could be made pursuant to the aforesaid order. Therefore he seeks quashing of the order dated 24.12.2002 and mandamus for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,45,450/- to the petitioner. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are delay and latches on the part of the petitioner as the order dated 24.12.2002 which has attained finality has been sought to be challenged by way of the instant petition filed in the year 2009 without there being any sufficient explanation. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the impugned order dated 24.12.2002 has been passed after due opportunity of hearing and defending himself in the inquiry proceedings as well as after the inquiry was concluded against the petitioner a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner and thereupon after considering his explanation, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, there was no procedural illegality in the impugned order and the same has never been challenged by the petitioner at the relevant point of time. Therefore, at such belated stage the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the WRIA No. 17608 of 2009 2 same. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that while the petitioner was in service for the irregularities in payment of certain amounts to the contractors etc., the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by appointing the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer has duly served the charge sheet upon the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner and thereafter the inquiry proceedings were concluded against the petitioner. On submission of the inquiry report the disciplinary authority has given a show cause notice to the petitioner which was duly replied by the petitioner. Thereafter the impugned order dated 24.12.2002 was passed. In the said impugned order proportionate recovery of Rs. 1,45,450/- was directed to be made against the petitioner from his salary at the rate of Rs. 2,909/- per month. However it appears the no recovery from the salary of the petitioner could be made and in the meantime the petitioner has retired and thereafter the respondents have recovered the said amount from the leave encashment amount payable to the petitioner. 7. So far as the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2002 is concerned, the same remained unchallenged till filing of the instant petition which was filed after more than 8 years. In such circumstances and in view of such inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in challenging the said order, this court cannot entertain the instant petition, permitting him to challenge the impugned order dated 24.12.2002 after more than 8 years. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. September 21, 2026 o.k. WRIA No. 17608 of 2009 3 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad