The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has set aside the departmental proceedings initiated against Smt. Sarita Yadav, a retired Administrative Officer of the Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Directorate. The court held that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of a mandatory sanction from the Governor, as required under Article 351A of the Civil Services Regulations (CSR) Rules.
Background of the Case
Smt. Sarita Yadav, who retired on November 30, 2021, was served a charge sheet on August 14, 2024, nearly three years after her retirement. The charges against her pertained to appointments made on compassionate grounds while she was serving as a Senior Assistant in 2012 and an additional charge from 2021.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Exemption from Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner is Sentenced to Imprisonment
The charge sheet was issued following a sanction for prosecution granted on March 27, 2024, by the Special Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of U.P. However, Yadav’s counsel argued that the sanction was invalid as it was not approved by the Governor, as mandated by law.
The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that:
Governor’s sanction is mandatory under Article 351A of CSR Rules before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired government employee.
Read Also:- Second Wife Cannot Be Prosecuted for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC: Chhattisgarh High Court
The sanction was issued by the Special Secretary, instead of the Governor, making it illegal and arbitrary.
A Right to Information (RTI) response dated December 12, 2024, confirmed that no approval from the Governor was available on record.
The State’s counsel countered that powers under Articles 166(2) and 166(3) of the Constitution allow for authentication of government orders on behalf of the Governor. However, the court found that these provisions do not substitute the explicit requirement for the Governor’s sanction under Article 351A of the CSR Rules.
Read Also:- Vijay Mallya Seeks Clarity from Karnataka HC as Banks Recover Over Rs14,000 Crore in Loan Dispute
Hon'ble Justice Alok Mathur ruled that only the Governor holds the authority to grant such a sanction, and any authorization by a minister or special secretary does not fulfill this legal requirement. The court cited a previous Division Bench ruling in Z.U. Ansari v. State of U.P. (Writ A No. 19485 of 2012), which had established that ministerial approval is not a substitute for the Governor’s sanction.
“In the absence of the Governor’s sanction, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired government servant. The impugned charge sheet and related proceedings are legally unsustainable,” the court stated.
Read Also:- Delhi Court Acquits Man in Dowry Death Case: Citing Insufficient Evidence
the court:
Quashed the charge sheet dated August 14, 2024, and the related orders issued on March 27, 2024, and May 8, 2024.
Allowed the State Government the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, provided they strictly adhere to the legal requirements.
