PRAYAGRAJ, Dec. 3 -- The Allahabad high court has observed that to curb the rapidly increasing corrupt practices in government departments in order to extend facilitation or favouritism for some vested reasons, no immunity should be accorded even to a retired government employee. The observation was made by a bench of 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 a 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 a show-cause notice to him in September 2025 in respect of various alleged irregularities in discharge of his duties between 2015 to 2022. For context, the notice was issued to him after a complaint was moved in April 2025 before the Vidhan Sabha speaker whereupon the district magistrate was asked to inquire into the matter. Appearing for the petitioner, his 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 the complaints moved by public representatives, were ignored while entertaining the complaint. It was further submitted that once the petitioner retired in June, there is no longer an employer-employee relationship between the respondent authorities and the petitioner and therefore, in these conditions, no such notice should have been given to him. 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. The court observed that a government servant discharges duties not merely to earn a salary, but contributes to the "building of the Nation", and thus owes a high standard of responsibility. The court further remarked that it should remain open to 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. The bench noted that a public representative (MLA in this case) plays a crucial role in society and experiences numerous grievances of the public at ground level. "Every complaint cannot be termed as politically motivated," the court said as it opined that the allegations cannot be ignored merely because they were made by a public representative or their relative. The court also noted that the petitioner had merely been served a show-cause notice asking for a reply to the findings. The court said a writ petition against a show-cause notice is not maintainable as no legal injury or prejudice is caused at such a nascent stage. However, in its judgment dated November 15, the court directed the petitioner to extend due cooperation to the inquiry and to adhere to the relevant rules applicable to a retired government servant....