Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Dilip Kumar Verma - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
WP No. 25931 (W) of 2017
Decided On : 01-05-2019
Pension Rules - Disciplinary Proceeding - Rule 153 of RPF Rules 1987, Rule 9 of Pension Rules 1993 - The court directed the disciplinary authority to proceed with the adjudication but such adjudication must be done strictly bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India & Ors. The court observed that Rule 9 of the Central Civil Servants (Pension) Rule, 1972 recognizes continuance of disciplinary proceeding after retirement and deductions from gratuity or pension or both, if the punishment so warrants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Inspector, challenged the imposition of penalty withholding 20% of his monthly pension for three years after retirement. The court directed the disciplinary authority to proceed with the adjudication but strictly bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceeding could not have continued after retirement and that the charge sheet did not disclose any pecuniary loss suffered by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded during the petitioner's service period, and the authorities failed to take necessary steps to conclude the proceeding after retirement. The court held that the authorities were not serious in prosecuting the petitioner and that the disciplinary proceeding was merely an empty formality. The court set aside the penalty order and directed the release of consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Railway Board could withhold the petitioner's pension as punishment in a disciplinary proceeding initiated under Rule 153 of RPF Rules 1987 when the employee was in service. The court also considered the lackadaisical attitude of the respondent authorities and the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceeding could not continue after retirement, and the authorities were required to take necessary steps in accordance with the RPF Rules 1987. The court also emphasized that the right to pension is a statutory right and the measure of deprivation must be correlative to the gravity of the misconduct or irregularity. The court found serious lapses on the part of the respondent authorities in proceeding with the disciplinary proceeding and set aside the penalty order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the penalty order and directed the release of consequential benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner was serving as Inspector, CIB, Jamalpur. A charge sheet was issued against him on 16th July, 2010. The said charge sheet was withdrawn without giving any reason for withdrawal. A fresh charge sheet was issued against him under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules 1987 in short) on 20th December, 2010. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated placing him under suspension. The petitioner was directed to submit his representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said charge sheet. The petitioner duly replied to the same.
2. Challenging the issuance of the second charge sheet on the self-same charges after withdrawal of the first charge sheet the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being W.P No. 4633 (W) of 2011. The said writ petition was taken up for consideration by the court on 13th April, 2011 whereby the court directed the respondents to file affidavit in opposition and directed the matter to appear in the list. However the learned court had been pleased to pass interim order of stay of the impugned order of suspension dated 17th June, 2010 until further order. The court was however pleased to grant liberty to the respondents to proceed on the basis of the charge sheet dated 20th December, 2010. It was directed that no final order shall be passed without the leave of the court.
3. The respondents challenged the order of the learned single judge by preferring appeal and the Hon'ble Appeal Court in MAT No. 693 of 2011 passed order on 16th June, 2011 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was not inclined to interfere with the interim order of stay and only requested the learned Single Judge to decide the matter on merits at an early date.
4. As per the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Court the respondent authority continued with the disciplinary proceeding and an inquiry report finding of the major penalty charge sheet was forwarded to the petitioner vide a letter dated 26th December, 2011. The petitioner was given fifteen days' time to submit representation against the major penalty charge sheet. The petitioner duly submitted his representation on 16th January, 2012.
The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on 28th February, 2012.
5. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in the pending writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondents authorities to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against him on the ground that he had retired from service in the meantime. W.P No. 4633 (W) of 2011 was finally heard and disposed of by the court on 2nd August, 2013 directing the disciplinary authority to proceed with the adjudication but such adjudication must be done strictly bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1990 (3) SLR 5. The court observed that Rule 9 of the Central Civil Servants (Pension) Rule, 1972 recognizes continuance of disciplinary proceeding after retirement and deductions from gratuity or pension or both, if the punishment so warrants.
6. Challenging the order dated 2nd August, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No. 2633 (W) of 2011 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the absence of an order of stay of the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge the disciplinary authority concluded the proceeding and vide order dated 11th February, 2016 imposed the penalty of withholding 20% of the monthly pension of the petitioner for a period of three years.
7. The appeal was disposed of by an order dated 31st January, 2017 wherein the Court held that in view of the final order passed by the disciplinary authority the appeal has become in fructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed. The court however observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order of penalty and to agitate the grounds as taken in the appeal at the time of challenging t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
