IMPORTANT POINT
The issuance of charge sheets before retirement is sufficient to initiate departmental proceedings, regardless of when they are served, thus not violating the four-year limitation for initiating such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the three Writ Petitions have been taken up for final disposal.

2. Since all these petitions involve a common issue, as to whether the charge sheets served upon the petitioner are liable to be quashed in view of the provisions contained in Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, hence they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment which follows.

3. The petitioner, who retired from the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of State of Maharashtra on 31/5/2017, by instituting these petitions, challenges the common judgment and order dated 4/5/2022, passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby Original Applications No.935/2019, 936/2019 and 937/2019 have been dismissed and the prayers made therein for quashing the charge sheets issued against the petitioner has not been acceded to.

4. Shri Sujeet Joshi, learned counsel representing the petitioners has vehemently argued that, the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment dated 4/5/2022, has not construed the provisions contained in Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) and Rule 27(6)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1982 correctly, and hence, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. His further submission is that as a matter of fact the charge sheets which were challenged by the petitioner for filing the Original Applications before the Tribunal are liable to be quashed for the reason that such charge sheets could not have been issued as per the provisions contained in Rule 27(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules, 1982, as the events in respect of which the charge sheets were issued had admittedly taken place more than four years from the date of institution of enquiry against the petitioner.

5. It has further been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 27(2)(b)(ii), the departmental proceedings against a retired employee cannot be instituted in respect of alleged irregularities said to have taken place more than four years before such institution. Drawing our attention to Rule 27(6)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1982, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that, departmental proceedings under Rule 27 are to be deemed to be instituted on the date on which statement of charges are issued to the employee concerned or the pensioner concerned. It has further been contended that since in this case, the charge sheets though drawn on 28/4/2017, were served to the petitioner after two years from the date he retired, there is no institution of the departmental proceedings in the eye of law before the petitioner retired, i.e. before 31/5/2017. In this view, the submission is that, on the basis of the charge sheets the departmental proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be carried out any further. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Debi & Laxmi Niwas Moody Vs. Income Tax Officer, District IV, Calcutta & Others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1742.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.P. has vehemently opposed the prayers made in the Writ Petitions and has submitted that, Rule 27(6)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1982 clearly provides that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charge sheet is issued. According to him, the phrase appearing in sub-rule (6) of Rule 27 is ‘issued’ and not ‘served’. The learned A.G.P. has stated that, admittedly the petitioner retired from service of the State Government on 31/5/2017 and charge sheets were issued on 28/4/2017 i.e. before he retired.

7. Further submission made by the learned A.G.P. is that merely because the charge sheets are said to have been serv