Prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings post-retirement may violate an employee's right to due process and cause undue prejudice, warranting quashing of proceedings under constitutional jurisdiction.

Order :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner herein, who stood retired from service as Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, seeks to challenge legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 24-9-2018 (Annexure P-1) by which the State Government has appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 for conducting departmental enquiry against him after his retirement.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he retired as Executive Engineer on 31-3-2007 vide Annexure P-3. The State Government after leave from the competent authority under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the Pension Rules’) instituted departmental enquiry against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet to him and two other employees namely, Mr. Mukesh Santoshi & Mr. P.K. Patel, on 31-8- 2007, however, charges against Mr. Mukesh Santoshi & Mr. P.K. Patel were dropped by order dated 22-5-2008. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted detailed reply on 3-3-2009 vide Annexure P-5 stating that the works were executed in accordance with the PWD Manual, without any financial irregularity or misappropriation of public funds and after receipt of reply, no further departmental proceeding was taken up from 2009 to 2018 and till the impugned order was issued, whereby Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate delay in conducting departmental enquiry and after the departmental proceeding was instituted on 31-8-2007, the order appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer was issued on 24- 9-2018 i.e. with a delay of 11 years and meanwhile, 10% of the total pension amount has also been deducted from the petitioner by order dated 16-1-2017 (Annexure P-2), which is in violation of the Rules and therefore the order impugned be quashed.

4. Return has been filed on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh/respondents No.1 to 4 stating inter alia that departmental enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the Pension Rules and the petitioner has been charge-sheeted, however, in the meanwhile, departmental proceeding could not proceed, however, by the impugned order dated 24-9-2018, Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer have been appointed and thereafter the matter could not proceed further.

5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner with the leave of the competent authority only on 31-8- 2007 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 24-9-2018 was communicated, as such, only in order to harass the petitioner, such an order has been passed which is patently illegal and a detailed reply to the charge-sheet has been submitted by the petitioner appropriately and competently on 3-3-2009 denying all the allegations and that is the reason why the Department could not proceed further against the petitioner, as such, on account of inordinate delay, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner be quashed. He would also submit that contrary to the third proviso (b) to Rule 9(4) of the Pension Rules, though the departmental proceedings have not been completed within two years from the date of institution, the entire amount of pension is not being paid to the petitioner, as 10% of the total pension amount is being deducted, whic