Allahabad High Court
SITA RAM SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay, and the disciplinary order stands.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Accounts Officer, challenged a disciplinary order dated 24‑12‑2002 that directed recovery of Rs.1,45,450 from his salary in monthly installments. The order, issued after a departmental inquiry into alleged irregularities, was never enforced during his service and was later recovered from his leave encashment after retirement. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2009, more than eight years after the order, seeking its quashment and a mandamus for payment of the amount. The respondents argued that the order had become final, was procedurally sound, and that the petitioner’s delay was inordinate. The High Court held that the petition could not be entertained due to the excessive delay and latches, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Can a disciplinary order be challenged after an inordinate delay of more than eight years?
- Is the order dated 24‑12‑2002 barred by delay and latches?
- Is recovery of the ordered amount from leave encashment permissible when salary recovery was not effected?
Subjects
- delay
- latches
- disciplinary proceedings
- salary recovery
- leave encashment
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 17608 of 2009
Sita Ram Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jagdish Chandra Sharma, K.D. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ekta Kaur
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
WRIA No. 17608 of 2009
2
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
3
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.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
September 21, 2026
o.k.
Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…