Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 284
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Parth Prateem Sahu, JJ.
Veenu Chaudhary S/o Late D.G. Chaudhary - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department - Respondents
WA No. 270 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of obtaining the sanction of the Governor before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant and the prohibition of instituting disciplinary proceedings in respect of events that took place more than four years before such institution under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 9(2)(b) - [ABSENCE FROM DUTY] - [Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965, Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976] - The court discussed the violation of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and the punitive nature of declaring the period of absence as dies non. It emphasized the need for departmental proceedings and the requirement of obtaining the sanction of the Governor before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant. The court quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner due to the absence of post-facto sanction and the violation of the Rules of 1976.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher (Science), challenged the drawing of a disciplinary proceeding by issuance of a charge sheet dated 25.04.2022, alleging absence from duty for a specific period after attaining superannuation. The petitioner had previously challenged an order declaring the period of absence as dies non, which was quashed with liberty reserved for appropriate action against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were in violation of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, as they were instituted without obtaining the sanction of the Governor and in respect of events that took place more than four years before such institution. The grant of liberty in the earlier litigation did not enable the authorities to act in violation of the Rules in force.
Issues: Violation of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965, punitive nature of declaring absence as dies non, requirement of obtaining the sanction of the Governor before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant, and the effect of the grant of liberty in the earlier litigation on the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for departmental proceedings and the requirement of obtaining the sanction of the Governor before initiating disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant. It held that the grant of liberty in the earlier litigation did not enable the authorities to act in violation of the Rules in force.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quashed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The writ appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 3171 of 2022, dismissing the writ petition.
3. The writ petition was filed assailing drawing of a disciplinary proceeding by issuance of a charge sheet dated 25.04.2022.
4. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Science). The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2014.
5. An order dated 31.03.2016 was passed by the respondent No.1 by which the period of absence from duty for 22 years 9 months and 11 days was declared as dies non. The petitioner assailed the said order by filing a writ petition, registered as WPS No. 2238/2016 and the same was disposed of on 13.01.2022. At paragraphs 10 and 11, the learned Single Judge had observed as follows:
“10. Thus, from perusal of the Rules and the law laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battilal's case (supra), it would appear that to declare the period of absence from duty of a public servant in violation of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and further to declare the period of absence as dies non are punitive order and it cannot be passed without proceeding departmentally in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. In the case in hand, the State Government straightway passed the order holding the petitioner guilty of Rule 7 of the Conduct Rules, 1965 and declaring the period of absence as dies non without affording opportunity of hearing to him. The consequence would be, the order of the State Government dated 31.03.2016 becomes vulnerable and it is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law and on its own merits.
11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.”
6. After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondents, as noted earlier, drew up the proceeding on 25.04.2022.
7. The petitioner had assailed the same by filing WPS No. 3171/2022, out of which the present appeal arises. The learned Single Judge noted that as liberty was granted in the earlier round of litigation, namely, WPS No. 2238/2016, it cannot be said that the authorities had acted unilaterally/arbitrarily while issuing charge sheet to the petitioner. Taking that view, the writ petition was dismissed.
8. The charge-sheet dated 25.04.2022 was issued to the appellant on the allegation that the petitioner had remained absent from 06.01.1984 to 20.04.1994 and from 21.04.1994 to 17.10.2006.
9. As the petitioner had attained superannuation, it is contended by Mr. Pandey that Rule 9(2)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, the Rules of 1976) would be applicable.
10. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents also endorses the aforesaid submission.
11. Rule 9(2)(b) of the reads as follows:
9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. -
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) (a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings:
(a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specifi
