IMPORTANT POINTS
When departmental proceeding was initiated during service period, Government can proceed with it even after retirement of the delinquent for imposing punishment.
Delay on part of employer in concluding departmental proceeding will not be fatal if satisfactorily explained.
When a court order holding continuation of departmental proceeding impermissible is set aside in appeal, the employer can proceed from the stage it was interdicted.

Judgment :-

H.L. Dattu, J.

Leave granted.

2) Challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court in W.P.S.T. No. 1010 of 2003 dated 13.6.2005, the Secretary, Forest Department and others, have filed this appeal.

3) The facts in nutshell are, the respondent while he was working in wild life Division - II at Jalpaiguri was served with a memo dated 10.3.1987, inter alia directing him to show cause, why disciplinary action should not be taken against him by the Divisional Forest Officer for gross financial irregularities in respect of measurement taken and payment made thereof for some of the works undertaken by him as Care Taker, Tourist Lodge, Jaldapara, as detected during the course of checking by the Divisional Forest Officers, Wild Life Division - II. Since the explanation offered by the respondent was not satisfactory, he was kept under suspension, pending departmental enquiry proceedings by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Bihar Division vide his order dated 13.8.1987. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 13.8.1987 was served on the respondent by the disciplinary authority. The Articles of charges against respondent were two, namely :-

(i) The respondent while functioning as Care Taker, Tourist Lodge, Jaldapara under Cooch Bihar Division from October 1985 to January 1987, deliberately neglected his duty in execution of works entrusted on him as care taker of the said Tourist Lodge and made excess payments against inflated measurements to the contractors for malafide personal gain, causing financial loss to the government to the tune of Rs.1,25,293.34 paisa.

(ii) While functioning as care taker of the tourist lodge, Jaldapara, the respondent intentionally falsified government documents and tempered with the same with ulterior motive of personal gain.

4) After initiation of departmental proceedings nothing seems to have been done by the disciplinary authority.

5) The respondent retired from service on 31st day of March, 1995, on attaining the age of superannuation.

6) As the authorities neither completed the departmental enquiry proceedings, nor released the retirement benefits to the respondent, he was constrained to file original application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5963 of 1999, inter alia, requesting the tribunal to direct the respondents therein to pass an order dropping the disciplinary proceedings, in view of inordinate delay in completing the disciplinary enquiry proceedings though it was initiated by issuing the charge memo dated 13.8.1987; to revoke the order of suspension dated 13.8.1987; to direct the respondents to pass an order declaring that the entire service period of the applicant from 13.8.1987 to 31.3.1995 as the period spent on duty and the applicant is entitled to salaries and the other emoluments for the said period; and lastly to pass an order computing the retiral benefits, including pensionary benefits.

7) The Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 1st day of August, 2003, disposed of the original application by directing the respondents/petitioners to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the applicant within a period of six months in accordance with Rule 10(1) of West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971, with a further direction to settle the entire subsistence allowance payable to the applicant.

8) The applicant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, had filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, requesting the court to set aside the orders passed by the tribunal and to grant reliefs sought for by the applicant in the original application.

9) The High Court has allowed the writ petition, inter alia, holding that during the pendency of departmental enquiry proceedings, the delinquent employee has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and there is no provision/Rule which would permit the employer from conti