The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must uphold natural justice, and punitive measures cannot be taken without appropriate evidence and procedures, especially post-retirement.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh and learned AC to Government Pleader-26.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the Respondent Health Department as contained in Memo No. 517(12) dated 10.06.2024, issued under the signature of the Director-in-Chief, whereby and whereunder, the concerned authority has been pleased to uphold the order of punishment inflicted against the petitioner's husband vide order as contained in letter no. 536(5) dated 29.04.2019, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, Department of Health by which forfeiture of 100% pension has been passed. However, the order dated 10.06.2024 is passed while disposing of the petitioner's representation filed in view of the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 8830/2020 and besides this, the petitioner has sought quashing of the office order issued by Health Department under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government as contained in Memo No. 536(5) dated 29.04.2019 declaring the same to be without jurisdiction and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner's husband was appointed on the post of Computer on temporary basis w.e.f. 05.08.1965 and got regular promotion on the post of Junior Statistical Assistant in the year 1971. The petitioner's husband was further promoted to the post of Senior Statistical Assistant in the year 1972 and consequently, pay revision was directed in favour of the petitioner's husband in the year 1986 by placing him in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1200 to 1800/-.

4. In the year 1990, a criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner's husband in reference to the allegations concerning irregularity in purchase of fallopian tube and accordingly, the Vigilance case got instituted vide Vigilance Case No. 100/1992. The Department of Health decided to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner's husband on the same allegation and, accordingly, was placed under suspension vide office order issued under the signature of Director-in-Chief, Health Services as contained in Memo no. 78 dated 25.10.1991.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Charge Memo was issued vide Memo no. 601(5) dated 15.09.1991 and the departmental proceeding was undertaken as per the Rule 55 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules (for short ‘ CCA Rules ’) has initiated by appointing Conducting Officer and accordingly, the departmental proceeding is said to have proceeded.

6. It has next been submitted that the Charge Memo sans the documents upon which the employer based its finding for drawing the charge sheet, was served and despite petitioner’s husband requisite demand for serving relevant papers for submitting reply to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 24.10.1991, was not entertained and no documents pertaining to imputation of charges was ever served to him. It has next been submitted that after the Charge Memo was served, no proceeding further proceeded in the departmental enquiry and no concrete development ever seen the light of the day in the said pending departmental enquiry and, accordingly, with long passage of time, the petitioner's husband got retired from his service with effect from 30.11.2003 and his provisional pension was fixed and the monthly payment was made after December, 2003.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the