Retirement No Shield Against Service-Period Irregularities: Allahabad HC Refuses to Quash Show-Cause Notice
Court held that a retired government servant can still be called to answer allegations relating to his service period
Retirement doesn't shield a government servant from scrutiny for irregularities during service, says Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court recently refused to interfere with a show-cause notice issued to a retired technical engineer of the Regulated Area, Farrukhabad, holding that retirement does not shield a government servant from scrutiny for alleged irregularities committed during service.
"Superannuation does not confer absolute independence from the charges or the allegations, if any, leveled for the work discharged during service period by a Government servant," said the bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan.
Court emphasised that a government servant owes a high standard of responsibility and to curb the rapidly increasing corrupt practices in government departments for extending facilitation or favoritism for vested reasons, no immunity should be accorded even to a retired person.
A complaint was submitted before the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 25 April 2025, alleging irregularities in petitioner Vipin Chandra Verma’s functioning between 2015 and 2022.
Following the Speaker’s direction, the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, constituted a three-member committee to examine the allegations. The committee submitted its inquiry report on 23 August 2025, identifying irregularities at five specific points. Acting on this report, the Chief Town and Country Planner issued a notice on 19 September 2025 asking the retired engineer to submit his response.
Instead of replying, the petitioner approached the high court, contending that the complaint itself was invalid as it had been filed by the brother-in-law of a sitting MLA, which according to him indicated political motivation.
His counsel further argued that the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the U.P. Legislative Assembly did not permit such a complaint, and that no proceedings could survive after his retirement on 30 June 2025. He also invoked Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations to submit that the alleged events fell outside the permissible time window for action against a retired employee.
The State opposed the petition, stressing that the notice was only a preliminary show-cause notice and therefore did not attract judicial review.
It further maintained that the irregularities highlighted in the inquiry report pertained to years within the limitation period prescribed under Regulation 351-A, which allows departmental proceedings relating to events within four years prior to initiation.
Justice Chauhan agreed with the State’s submissions and held that none of the petitioner’s objections justified quashing the notice.
Court observed that retirement does not automatically extinguish accountability for acts performed during service. Referring to the structure of Regulation 351-A, court emphasised that the State retains the authority to act against a retired employee if allegations relate to a period within the statutory threshold.
Addressing the contention of political motive, court held that a complaint does not become invalid merely because it is filed by a public representative’s relative.
Public representatives, court said, are often approached with grievances, and every such complaint cannot be presumed to be politically influenced. The allegations themselves, rather than the identity of the complainant, must be the basis for assessment.
Court also rejected the argument that the Legislative Assembly’s rules barred the complaint, noting that the core issue before it was whether a show-cause notice could be quashed in writ jurisdiction.
Reiterating the Supreme Court’s consistent view that courts ordinarily do not interfere at the notice stage, the bench cited several precedents, including Calcutta Discount Co. Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District and another, Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another and concluded that no legal injury had yet been caused.
Holding that the petitioner must participate in the process rather than challenge it prematurely, court dismissed the writ petition.
It further noted that while the petitioner is a retired government servant, the authorities must follow the applicable rules while proceeding further.
Case Title: Vipin Chandra Verma vs. State of U.P. and 5 others
Order Date: November 15, 2025
Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan