Retirement No Bar To Corruption Probes For Government Employees, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to curb rapidly-increasing corrupt practices in government departments to extend facilitation or favouritism for some vested reasons, no immunity should be accorded even to a retired employee. The observation was made by a bench comprising 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 the relative of a sitting MLA.

The petitioner – Vipin Chandra Verma, who retired on June 30, 2025 – submitted before the high court that the authorities had no jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice to him in September 2025 in respect of alleged irregularities in the discharge of his duties between 2015 and 2022.

The notice was issued to Verma after a complaint was filed in April 2025 before the Assembly speaker, after which the district magistrate was asked to inquire into the matter.

The petitioner’s counsel 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 complaints moved by public representatives, were ignored while entertaining the complaint.

The counsel also submitted that once the petitioner retired in June, there was no employer-employee relationship between the respondents and the petitioner, and, therefore, no such notice should have been served to him under such conditions.

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

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

However, it was pointed out on behalf of the state government counsel 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 “nation building”, and thus owes a high standard of responsibility.

The court also said 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.

Justice Chauhan also rejected the petitioner’s contention that the complaint was politically motivated.

The bench noted that a public representative – an MLA in this case – plays a crucial role in society and experiences numerous grievances of the public at the ground level.

“Every complaint cannot be termed politically motivated,” it said, adding that the allegations cannot be ignored merely because they were made by a public representative or his/her relative.

The court also noted that the petitioner had merely been served a show-cause notice asking for a reply to the findings.

A writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable as no legal injury or prejudice is caused at such a nascent stage, Justice Chauhan said.

The court also directed the petitioner to extend due cooperation to the inquiry and to adhere to the relevant rules applicable to a retired government servant.