In a significant ruling aimed at curbing corruption, the Allahabad High Court has made it clear that retired government employees cannot claim immunity from inquiry and action if they are involved in corrupt practices. The court emphasized that the fight against graft in government departments must remain robust, regardless of an employee's retirement status.
Court Dismisses Retired Engineer's Petition
The observation was delivered by a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan on November 15. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Vipin Chandra Verma, a retired technical junior engineer. Verma had challenged an inquiry initiated against him after his retirement, which was based on a complaint filed by a relative of a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA).
Verma, who retired on June 30, 2025, argued before the High Court that the authorities had no jurisdiction to issue him a show-cause notice in September 2025. The notice pertained to alleged irregularities in the discharge of his duties between 2015 and 2022. The notice was issued after a complaint was made in April 2025 before the Speaker of the Vidhan Sabha, who subsequently directed the District Magistrate to investigate the matter.
Key Arguments and Court's Rejection
The petitioner's counsel presented several arguments for quashing the inquiry:
- The complaint was politically motivated and the proper rules for handling complaints by public representatives were ignored.
- The employer-employee relationship ended upon retirement, making any departmental notice invalid.
- Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations bars proceedings for events that occurred more than four years prior to the inquiry's start. Since the probe covered 2015-2022, it was argued to be time-barred.
The court, however, found no merit in these submissions. On the limitation issue, the state government counsel pointed out that the inquiry report dated August 23, 2025, found irregularities specifically listed at Serial No. 15, which pertained to the year 2022. The court agreed that since the 2022 event fell well within the four-year limitation period, the proceedings were not barred by Regulation 351-A.
Brother Principles and Final Directions
The bench made several crucial observations of principle. It stated that a government servant's role is not merely to earn a salary but to contribute to the "building of the nation", which demands a high standard of responsibility. The court opined that it must remain open for the public or their representatives to bring to light any misconduct by a government servant, whether retired or in service.
The court also rejected the claim of the complaint being politically motivated. It noted that an MLA, as a public representative, plays a vital role in society and is aware of public grievances. "Every complaint cannot be termed as politically motivated," the court said, adding that allegations cannot be ignored merely because they originate from a public representative or their relative.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioner had only been served a show-cause notice at a preliminary stage, and a writ petition against such a notice is generally not maintainable as no legal injury is caused at that nascent point. The bench, while dismissing the petition, directed Vipin Chandra Verma to extend full cooperation to the ongoing inquiry and to follow the rules applicable to a retired government servant.
This ruling reinforces the accountability of public servants and sends a clear message that retirement is not an escape route from answering charges of corruption committed during service.
