To Curb Increasing Corrupt Practices, No Immunity Should Be Accorded Even To A Retired Govt Employee: Allahabad High Court

The observation was made by a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while dismissing a writ petition filed by a retired Technical Junior Engineer challenging an inquiry initiated against him after his retirement based on a complaint filed by a relative of a sitting MLA.

Briefly put, the petitioner (Vipin Chandra Verma) who retired on June 30, 2025, argued in the HC that the authorities had no jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice to him in September 2025 in respect of various alleged irregularities in discharge of his duties between 2015 to 2022.

For context, the notice was issued to him after a complaint was moved in April 2025 before the Speaker, Vidhan Sabha, whereupon the District Magistrate was asked to inquire into the matter.

Senior Advocate Prabhakar Awasthi, assisted by Advocate Lavkush Singh, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the complaint was politically motivated and that the relevant rules [Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the UP Legislative Assembly, 1958] which provide for the procedure for entertaining the complaints moved by public representatives, were ignored while entertaining the complaint.

It was also his categorical stand before the HC that once the petitioner retired in June, there is no longer an employer-employee relationship between the respondent authorities and the petitioner and therefore, in these conditions, no such notice should have been given to him.

It was submitted that Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations bars departmental proceedings against a retired officer for events that took place more than four years prior to the institution of proceedings.

It was argued that since the inquiry covered the period from 2015 to 2022, the consequent notice was time-barred.

However, the State, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel, pointed out that the inquiry report dated August 23, 2025, found irregularities specifically at Serial No. 15, which pertained to the year 2022.

Against this backdrop, noting that since the event in 2022 fell well within the four-year limitation period, the Court found no force in the argument that the proceedings were barred by Regulation 351-A.

The Court also observed that a government servant discharges duties not merely to earn a salary, but contributes to the "building of the Nation", and thus owes a high standard of responsibility.

The Court further remarked that it should remain open for the public or its representatives to reveal any ignorance of a government servant, whether retired or in service, in the discharge of their official duties.

The High Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner that the complaint was politically motivated. The Bench noted that a public representative (MLA in this case) plays a crucial role in society and experiences numerous grievances of the public at ground level.

"Every complaint cannot be termed as politically motivated," the Court said as it opined that the allegations cannot be ignored merely because they were made by a public representative or their relative.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had merely been served a show-cause notice asking for a reply to the findings. The Court added that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable as no legal injury or prejudice is caused at such a nascent stage.

The writ petition was thus dismissed and the Court directed the petitioner to extend due cooperation to the inquiry and to adhere to the relevant rules applicable to a retired government servant.