Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee can continue if initiated during service; defining grave misconduct under pension rules does not require explicit mention in charges, as grave allegations suffice.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This matter has a chequered history. The parties have fought a long-drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. The respondent no.1/writ petitioner, while working as an Inspector, RPF, CIB, was placed under suspension and was served with a charge memorandum. The respondent no.1 herein filed W.P. No. 4633(W) of 2011, challenging the charge-sheet. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated August 2, 2013, by holding that the Bench is not able to quash the disciplinary proceeding. However, it was observed and directed that the disciplinary authority was free to proceed with the adjudication but such adjudication must be done strictly bearing in mind the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1990(3) SLR 5 . With this observation, the writ application was disposed of.

2. The order dated August 2, 2013, passed in WP 4633 (W) of 2011 became the subject-matter of challenge in an appeal being FMA 51 of 2014. Vide order dated January 31, 2017, while declining interference on the order of the learned Single Judge, it was observed that dismissal of appeal filed by the employee would not debar him to challenge the punishment order dated February 11, 2016 before the appropriate forum.

3. The charge-sheet ended with imposition of punishment by order dated 11.02.2016. The punishment was imposed after retirement of the petitioner from service on attaining the age of superannuation on February 28, 2012. The punishment of withholding of 20% of monthly pension for a period of three years was imposed on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the same by filing a fresh petition i.e. WP 25931(W) of 2017, decided on May 1, 2019. The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment order and allowed the petition. The direction to release consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner was also issued.

Contention of the Department:

4. Learned Counsel for the department submits that when WP 4633(W) of 2011 was listed before the Single Bench on April 13, 2011, a conditional interim order was passed by suspending the order of suspension dated June 17, 2010. The respondents were given liberty to proceed on the basis of the charge-sheet dated December 20, 2010 but were restrained from passing final order without the leave of the Court. The permission was granted to file an application for vacation, variation/modification of the said interim order.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the charge-sheet was issued when the employee was in employment. After retirement, in view of Rule 9(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (in short ‘Pension Rules’), the proceedings which were instituted automatically continued and ended with imposition of punishment by order dated February 11, 2016.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that even after retirement of delinquent employee, under the Pension Rules, the Department had a right not only to continue with the enquiry already instituted but also to impose a suitable punishment. The charge-sheet was issued for the misconduct committed between 2004-2010 but the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the charge-sh