Hon. Manoj Misra, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27th September, 2001 of the State Government by which she has been punished with 50% deduction of her pension, after her retirement as Asstt. Director (Basic), Allahabad on 31.8.2000, for which she was served with charges, vide chargesheet dated 5.6.1998 by the State Government with the approval of Governor of Uttar Pradesh, and with approval to the punishment by the U.P. Public Services Commission dated 12.7.2001.
2. We have heard Shri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Teacher on 26.9.1961 in Government Girls Inter College, Azamgarh. After selections she was appointed as Lecturer of Urdu in Government Girls Inter College, Ghazipur in 1965. She was selected for appointment on the post of Principal in the year 1990 and thereafter as Principal of Government Girls Inter College, Daha, Meerut. In 1995 she was promoted as District Inspector of Schools and was posted in Distt. Gonda from where she was transferred to Distt. Mau in 1995 and on 1.11.1997 she was given additional charge of District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. She was posted as Distirct Inspectors of Schools, Jaunpur on 2.11.1997, and retired on superannuation serving as Asstt. Director (Basic) at Allahabad on 31.8.2000.
4. A chargesheet dated 5.6.1998, was served upon her, when she was posted as District Inspector of Schools, Mau, with following allegations:-
"I. The petitioner had accorded approval to one Sri Mohd. Fuzail Ansari on the post of Lecturer (Urdu) in Muslim Inter Collegte, Mau without there being a sanctioned post.
II. The petitioner accorded financial approval and made the payment of the following teachers in different institutions mentioned herein below:-
a) Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyaya V.R.K. Inter College Assistant Teacher Validpur Mau
b) Sri Ram Narain Prasad Janta Siksha Niketan Inter College, Dubari, Mau
c) Sri Naseem Khan (Peon) Taleemuddin Inter College, Mau
d) Sri Ajajul Hassan Taleemuddin Inter (Assistant Teacher) College, Mau
e) Sri Mustaq Ahmad Darul Uloom Clerk Niswa, Mau A appointment as peon in National Inter College, Mohamdabad, Gohana III. In violation of the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner certified signature of the Manager on 22.9.1997.
IV. The petitioner had negligently submitted the certificate regarding utilisation of Rs.60,000/- for construction of Common Room in Shaheed Inter College, Madhuwan, District-Mau.
The petitioner illegally certified the signature of Sri Brijendra Yadav ignoring the Senior Lecturer Sri Surendra Nath Chaubey."
5. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charges on 15.9.1998. In respect of charge no.1 she submitted that she had already given an explanation to Director (Madhyamik) U.P. on 23.4.1998, a copy of which was enclosed with the reply. In reply to charge no.2 the petitioner stated that she passed the order dated 1.11.1997 for releasing salary of Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay, Asstt. Teacher, VRK Inter College, Validpur on the interim order dated 15.4.1997 passed by the High Court. In respect of Ram Narain Prasad, Asstt. Teacher, Janta Siksha Niketan Inter College, Dubari, Mau, she submitted that he was appointed against substantive vacancy. She had requested the Accounts Officer to submit report on 1.6.1996, on which she was advised by him on 8.7.1996 that financial approval can be given to his salary in view of the orders of the High Court, and consequently she passed an order on 28.10.1997, and was thereafter relieved on transfer on 1.11.1997. In respect of Shri Naseem Khan, Peon in Taleemuddin Inter College, Mau, she submitted that he was appointed on the death of late Imran Khan by decision of District Level Selection Committee on 19.8.1997 in which the approval of the Accounts Officer was also included. The charge of illegally approving appointment of Shri Naseem Khan was not found proved.
6. In respect of Shri Ajajul Hasan, Asstt. Teacher in Taleemuddin Inter College, Mau the petitioner submitted that he was appointed on the vacancy caused on the retirement of Shri Shameem Ahmad, the Principal of the college on 30.6.1997. The financial approval of the appointment was given by the Deputy Director of Education on 26.6.1997. He was Asstt. Teacher in the same college. Shri Niyaj Ahmad was allowed to officiate as Principal and in his place Shri Ajajul Hasan was appointed temporarily and had worked from 13.10.1997 to 14.5.1998.
9. In respect of charge no.4 the petitioner submitted that the building of common room constructed from Rs.60,000/- allocated to Shaheed Inter College, Madhuwan, Mau was complete. Some finishing work was required to be done. Since the entire amount was exhausted, the utility certificate given by the college was forwarded by her. She submitted that she remembers that the DIOS, Mau had in his letter dated 16.12.1997 mentioned that the building is still under consideration.
10. In respect of charge no.5 the petitioner replied that Shri Surender Nath Chaubey had filed Writ Petition No.6837 of 1997 against the order of his suspension dated 18.2.1997, which is still pending. Shri Akhilesh Dubey and Shri Raghunath Singh were juniors to him. They had given in writing that they are not willing to work as Officiating Principal on which Shri Brijendra Yadav was allowed to officiate as Officiating Principal. So far as allegation of giving opportunity to Shri Surendra Nath Chaubey is concerned, since the matter was pending and Shri Brijendra Yadav was continuing under the interim orders of the High Court, the petitioner found that her approval may amount to contempt to the High Court and thus she approved the signature of Shri Brijendra Yadav as Officiating Principal.
11. Along with reply the petitioner also requested to supply copies of the orders of the High Court; the vacancy position of the colleges; and the date on which the requisition was sent to the Commission to fill up the post, in respect of charge no.2/2. 12. The petitioner also forwarded a letter on 9.12.1998 for providing her the files of Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay and Shri Ram Narain Prasad, which were available in the office of the Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh for verifying the facts regarding status of the vacancy in the college. She also requested for the orders of the High Court in the case of Shri Ram Narain Prasad. 13. It is submitted that no oral enquriy was held. The enquiry report of Sushri Urmila Shukla does not disclose that any dates were fixed in the enquiry, or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Further there is nothing to demonstrate that any witnesses were examined or the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine them or to lead oral evidence in her defence. The petitioner made a request on 23.12.1998 that she does not want to produce any more documents on which the enquiry officer closed the proceedings and submitted a report, which was forwarded to the petitioner along with letter of the Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, U.P. Allahabad dated 22.7.1999. The petitioner gave a reply to the enquiry report on 23.8.1999, in which she submitted that the findings have been arrived at without looking into the records and the directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions filed in the matters in which she is alleged to have given approvals on her own. 14. On the retirement of the petitioner on 31.8.2000 the State Government took sanction of the Governor, under Art.351A of the Civil Services Regulations, to continue with the enqiry, which was given on 15.2.2001. 15. By order dated 27th September, 2001 signed by the Secretary to the Government of U.P. after getting approval of the U.P. Public Service Commission and the Governor of U.P., the State Government found charge nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 out of five charges, to be fully established and after considering the petitioner's explanation to the enquiry report, she was punished with deduction of 50% of her pension.
16. Shri Avanish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the enquiry officer in her report did not find approval of appointment of Shri Naseem Khan, Peon and Shri Mustaq Ahmad, Clerk, she was found guilty of the allegations of charge no.2 in respect of Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay, Shri Ram Narain Prasad and Shri Ajajul Hasan. The conclusions of enquiry officer in respect of charge Nos.4 and 5 are more in the nature of doubt than the proof of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, in its order, which has not been corrected, found charge Nos.1, 3 4 and 5 to be proved. He submits that these mistakes demonstrates that the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not apply their mind to the proof of charges against the petitioner for which she was made to suffer by delay in finalisation of her gratuity and pension and award of provisional pension until, the final orders were passed. Her pension was finally fixed on 11.7.2003 and gratuity was calculated by order dated 12.8.2005.
17. Shri Avanish Mishra submits that during the pendency of the enquiry the State Government, under the Proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India, made the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules provides for action on enquiry report, and which provides for passing reasoned order imposing one or more penalty mentioned in Rule 3. Shri Avanish Mishra submits that no oral enquiry was held nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to produce witnesses in her defence. The order reducing pension by 50% is by way of major penalty, even if it is not so defined in the Rules, as it has permanent effect and takes away a part of pension, which is a valuable property right. The reservation of powers under Art.351A of the Civil Services Regulations to recover from pension whole or any part of pecuniary loss by way of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, is a punishment, which may be awarded on account of gross misconduct, after the retirement of the delinquent government servant, when it is found that the actions of delinquent government servant had resulted into loss to the State Government. He submits that in the present case the orders were passed by the petitioner, in almost all the charges, in pursuance to the interim orders issued by the High Court and that there is no finding recorded by the enquiry officer that on account of approvals given by the petitioner any financial loss was caused to the State Government. In the circumstances the petitioner could not have been punished with reduction of 50% of her pension after her retirement under Art.351A of the Civil Services Regulations. He has relied upon the State of U.P. v. Brahm Dutt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179, followed by Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Gopi Chand Vishnoi v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2007 (4) AWC 3591; Atma Deen Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1998 (4) AWC 218 and Ravindra Nath Banerjee v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1999 (4) AWC 3371.
18. Shri Avanish Mishra submits that in Ravindra Nath Banerjee's case (Supra), which is much closer to the facts of the present case, the payment of salaries were made by the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Fatehpur to Sanskrit teachers in pursuance to the interim orders passed by the High Court. It was held that, where the payments were made under the interim orders of the High Court in writ petitions, even if the appointments were ultimately cancelled, it cannot be said that the approving authority had caused any financial loss to the Government. Similarly in Gopi Chand Vishnoi (Supra) while discussing the powers of the Governor under Art.351A, it was held following Sharad Kumar v. State of U.P., 2006 (7) AWC 7293, that an action under Art.351A is permissible only if the charges against the retired government servant are found proved, which are either in the nature of grave misconduct, or cause pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of the State Government.
19. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another (1987) 2 SCC 179 the Supreme Court, in a matter arising out of a show cause notice given to the petitioner, who was serving and had retired as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government, under Article 420 (b) of the Civil Services Regulation calling upon him to show cause as to why his pension and gratuity be not forfeited, held that the grant of pension to employees of the State Government is regulated by the Civil Services Regulations, which have statutory character. Article 348-A provides that pension shall be granted subject to the conditions contained in the regulations. Article 351-A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension, whole or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period and also to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of the pension, for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or in judicial proceedings for any misconduct or negligence during his service. Article 353 lays down that no pension shall be granted to an officer dismissed or removed from service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but compassionate allowance may be granted on special consideration. The claim of pension is determined by length of service, as provided by Articles 474 to 485. Full pension is admissible under the rules not as a matter of course but only if the service rendered by the government employee is approved. The regulations empower the authority sanctioning the pension to make such reduction in the amount of pension as it may think proper. The Supreme Court thereafter held:-
"6.....These provisions indicate that a Government servant is entitled to pension but the claim of pension is determined in accordance with the statutory rules. No doubt pension is no more a bounty; instead it is a right earned by the Government servant on the basis of length of service. Nonetheless grant of full pension depends on the approval of service rendered by the employee. In other words if the service rendered by the Government servant has not been satisfactory he would not be entitled to full pension and it would always be open to the Govt. to withhold or reduce the amount of pension in accordance with the statutory rules. If the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Govt. servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is open to the State Govt. to initiate departmental proceedings, and if in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or omission as a result of which Govt. is put to pecuniary loss, the State Govt. is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension. These provisions ordain the Govt. servant to perform his duties faithfully and honestly. Honest and devoted service rendered by a Govt. servant ensures efficiency in public administration. The statutory rules therefore contain provisions for the forfeiture and deduction in the pension of Govt. servant who have not rendered satisfactory service or who have been found guilty of misconduct or negligence resulting in pecuniary loss to the Govt. Merely because a Govt. servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities.
The Supreme Court thereafter held in paragraph-8 as follows:-
"A plain reading of the regulation indicates that full pension is not awarded as a matter of course to a Govt. servant on his retirement instead, it is awarded to him if his satisfactory service is approved. If the service of a Govt. servant has not been thoroughly satisfactory the authority competent to sanction the pension is empowered to make such reduction in the amount of pension as it may think proper. Proviso to the regulation lays down that no order regarding reduction in the amount of pension shall be made without the approval of the appointing authority. Though the Regulations do not expressly provide for affording opportunity to the Govt. Servant before order for the reduction in the pension is issued, but the principles of natural justice ordain that opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the Govt. servant before any order is passed. Art. 311(2) is not attracted, nonetheless the Govt. servant is entitled to opportunity of hearing as the order of reduction in pension affects his right to receive full pension. It is no more in dispute that pension is not bounty; instead it is a right to property earned by the Govt. servant on his rendering satisfactory service to the State. In State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, [1973] 2 SCR 405 this Court held that the State Govt. could not direct cut in the pension of officers without giving a reasonable opportunity of bearing to them. In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Suppl. SCR 634 it was held that pension is not bounty pay- able at the sweet will and pleasure of the Govt.; instead the right to pension is valuable right vested in a Govt. servant. Again in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165 this Court held that payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Govt. but it is governed by the rules and Govt. servant coming under those rules is entitled to claim pension. A Govt. employee earns his pension by rendering long and efficient service, the claim of pension is regulated by rules, which provide for reduction in the amount of pension if the Govt. servant has failed to render efficient service. In M. Narasimhachar v. State of Mysore, [1960] 1 SCR 981 this Court upheld the order of the State Govt. in reducing pension of a Govt. employee as the rules regulating the grant of pension made provision for reduction of pension on account of his having rendered unsatisfactory service. Rule 6.4 of Punjab Civil Pension Rules provides for the reduction in the amount of pension if the service of the Govt. employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory. The State Govt.'s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta (Supra) and in State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, [1976] 3 SCR 360 on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the affected employees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt. is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant."
20. In State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (1988) 2 SCC 52 the Supreme Court followed the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra) and held in respect of an enquiry on the two charges namely that the delinquent government servant had collected permits from the Kolhapur Central Co-operative Consumers Khatavane with mala fide intention after passing a receipt thereof to the Godown Keeper to shield Shri K.P. Khatavane and his son Baban Khatavane from criminal prosecution and on charge no. 2 that he had deliberately and intentionally denied to have made any enquiry unauthorisedly lifting of 10 bags of sugar on bogus or forged permit by Shri Baban Khatavane and his son with some ulterior motive and abetted them in the disposal of sugar in black market. Considering the punishment of the reduction in pension by 50% as against the recommendation of the Collector to take a lenient view and reducing the pension to the extent of Rs. 1/- per month the Supreme Court held the punishment to be extremely harsh and disproportionate and observed in paragraph-8 as follows:-
"8.On conclusion of the enquiry charge No. 1 was found to have been established while charge No. 2 was partially proved. In his report to the State Government the Collector of Kolhapur held that the respondent's action was helpful to Shri Khatavane to sell the sugar in the black market, and it amounted to a serious default on his part as a Government servant. He recommended that since the respondent had already retired from service a lenient view should be taken and reduction in pension to the extent of Re. 1 per month be made The State Government accepted the findings and passed the impugned order reducing the pension by 50 per cent In our view the reduction of pension 50 per cent was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. The State Government should have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent had retired from service and the reduction of pension by 50 per cent would seriously affect his living."
21. In State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and others (2006) 7 SCC 651 the Supreme Court reiterated after following the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330; State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry (1973) 1 SCC 120; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra); and State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (supra) in holding that the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground is one thing but to hold such a rule to be ultra vires is another. The Supreme Court had observed in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma's case that if the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is open to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings, and if in those proceedings, he is found guilty of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or omission as a result of which Government is put to pecuniary loss, the State Government is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension.
22. In State of U.P. vs. Harihar Bholenath (2006) INSC) 734 dated 1.11.2006, and Secretary, Forest Department and others vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (2009) 7 SCC the Supreme Court, following the afore-referred judgments, reiterated the same principle that if in the proceedings drawn against a government servant on the charges of misconduct in a departmental enquiry which has proceeded beyond his retirement, the State Government is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it for forfeiture and reduction of pension after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to such government servant.
23. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner committed gross acts of misconduct in approving appointments, which resulted into payment of salary to unauthorised persons causing loss to the State Government. The charges of unauthorized approvals to Shri Mohd. Fazail Ansari, Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyaya, Shri Ram Narain Prasad and Shri Ajajul Hassan were proved. The charge of issuing utilization certificate of Rs.60,000/- of common room of Shaheed Inter College, Madhuwan, Distt. Mau, which was not fully constructed, was also established, and on which the State Government has powers to punish a government servant even after retirement after seeking approval of the Governor, which in this case has been duly obtained.
24. It is fairly well settled, that the pension is neither a bounty nor reward. It is earned by a government servant under the statutory rules after rendering satisfactory services. The pension or part thereof can be withdrawn under Art.351A, whether permanently or for specified period, where a pensioner under any departmental or judicial proceedings is found to be guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct or negligence during his services including services rendered on re-employment. The proceedings of departmental enquiry have to be held in accordance with law serving principle of natural justice. The orders passed by withdrawing or reducing the pension have permanent effect, and thus such proceedings are of the nature of awarding major penalty in which the rules of enquiry must be strictly followed. When the State Government has framed rules under the proviso to Art.309 for imposing penalty including major penalty, namely the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 the rules must be strictly followed. Art.351A authorizes the punishment to be given even after retirement. It does not in any way curtail or take away the right of the pensioner, which is otherwise given to a serving government servant, to defend himself in the enquiry. The punishment under Art.351A of withdrawing or reducing the pension can be given only if the pensioner, while she was serving as government servant is found to have committed gross misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the government by misconduct or negligence during her services.
25. In the present case there is no finding by the enquiry officer, or any conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority on the report of enquiry officer that any gross misconduct or the financial loss was caused to the State Government on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner. The enquiry officer found that the approval to the appointment of Mohd. Fazail Ansari, Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay, Shri Ram Narain Prasad and Shri Ajajul Hassan, was not in accordance with law. The petitioner had verified the signature of Manager of the Committee of Management on 22.9.1997 against the interim order dated 21.9.1997, which was not proved to have been received by the petitioner before she had verified the signatures nor any contempt was filed or the High Court had set aside the elections. Similarly the certificate of utilization of Rs.60,000/- for construction of common room for which the entire amount was found to be utilised and the signatures of Shri Brijendra Yadav was attested as Principal ignoring the claim of Senior Lecturer Shri Surendra Nath Chaubey did not amount to gross misconduct, which could have resulted into any financial loss to the State Government.
26. On a close examination of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer we find that on the first charge of approval of appointment of Mohd. Fazail Ansari it was found that the approval was given without waiting for reply of the Manager of the college to produce the order of sanction of post and was passed without financial approval given by the Accounts officers. On the reply given by the petitioner that there were 12 teachers in the college on which the appointment of Shri Ansari was approved, on 1.11.1997 the enquiry officer observed that the petitioner committed error in granting approval without verifying the sanction of the post after the financial survey held in the year 19986-87. There is no specific finding that the petitioner approved the appointment without any sanctioned post or that there was no post, on which Shri Fazail Ansari could be appointed.
27. In respect of salary of Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay, the defence of the petitioner that she had paid the salary in pursuance to the directions issued by the High Court on 15.4.1997 in Writ Petition No.12559 of 1997, the enquiry officer found that inspite of interim orders the petitioner was required to find out the date on which Shri Ganesh Dutt Upadhyay was appointed and whether any counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition and also whether any contempt petition was filed. She also observed that the petitioner should have filed the counter affidavit in the High Court, which suggest that she was in collusion in payment of salary. On the appointment of Shri Ram Narain Prasad, the enquiry officer observed that the order of the High Court dated 4.12.1995 for payment of salary to him was complied within 1997 without giving importance to the directions of the District Inspector of Schools. The orders passed by the High Court were not to be followed by the District Inspector of Schools as the High Court had given liberty to the District Inspector of Schools to file counter affidavit, which is not shown to have been filed. The petitioner did not follow the departmental rules in allowing the financial approval to the appointment of Shri Ram Narain Prasad.
28. For Ajajul Hassan, the enquiry officer found that though the appointment was made in minority institution and the Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh had by his order dated 26.6.1997 gave approval to issue appointment letter to him, the Committee of Management should have issued appointment letter to him in pursuance to his selection and in pursuance to the directions issued by the Deputy Director of Education (Madhyamik). The defence of the petitioner that the post of Principal had fallen vacant substantively on which Shri Niyaz Ahmad was appointed was incorrect. Shri Niyaz Ahmad was appointed on a post, which had temporarily fallen vacant on the leave taken by Shri Azajul Hassan without pay. The approval given by her prior to orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education was irregular.
29. So far as utilization certificate of common room of Shaheed Inter College, Madhuwan, Mau is concerned, there was no dispute that building had been constructed. The finishing of the building was, however, not over upto the time, the petitioner on verification by the District Inspector of School forwarded the utilization certificate. Once again the charge was found proved as of an irregularity in forwarding certificate without verifying whether the building was complete and not for non-utilisation of the amount on the existing constructions, which could have caused any loss to the State Government. The fifth charge relates to allowing a person junior to Shri Surendra Nath Chaubey to officiate as Principal of the college, who was suspended and had obtained interim order from this Court. In this matter also the writ petition no.6837 of 1997 was pending and thus the approval of officiating appointment of the next seniormost teacher could not have been treated as misconduct or on account of which any loss was caused to the State Government.
30. We further find that the departmental enquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice in as much as no oral enquiry was held nor any witnesses were led or opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead oral evidence. There was no finding recorded by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner has committed acts of gross misconduct or have caused any loss to the State Government to exercise powers under Art.351A of the Civil Services Regulation for making deductions from her pension.
31. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.9.2001 passed by the Secretary, Education, Anubhag-13, U.P. Lucknow is set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the entire pension of the petitioner. She will be paid the entire amount of arrears of pension and retirement dues, if any, within a period of three months. Since the departmental enquiry was pending, and that the writ petition was also filed, we do not find that the respondents have caused any intentional or deliberate delay in finalizing the pension to award any interest to the petitioner.
Dt.02.03.2012 SP/