The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021, regarding the limitation of departmental proceedings in relation to events more than four years prior to the institution of the charges.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns charges contained in Memorandum of Charges dated 29.05.2023.

2. Petitioner joined the service of the Central Industrial Security Force as an Assistant Commandant on 16.09.1991. Petitioner rose to the rank of Deputy Inspector General and superannuated on 30.11.2022. At the time of superannuation of the petitioner, certificates were issued by the competent authority certifying that there was no departmental proceeding pending or contemplated against the petitioner. All retiral benefits of the petitioner were thereafter released.

3. On 14.06.2023, as per the petitioner, the impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 29.05.2023 has been served on the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the Article of Charge No. I is barred by limitation.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that though petitioner has impugned the entire charge-sheet as a whole, he, however, restricts his challenge to Article of Charge No. I on the ground that it is barred by limitation in terms of Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021. He reserves the right of the petitioner to raise all available defenses qua Articles of Charge No.II and III at an appropriate stage.

5. Learned senior counsel further relies on the decision dated 17.05.2023 of the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) 1042/2021, Suchismita Mishra Vs. High Court of Orissa & Ors., to contend that proceedings are deemed to be initiated on the date when statement of charges is issued.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that that the charge-sheet being a composite charge-sheet cannot be split into two and if the plea of the petitioner is accepted, the respondents would be required to take fresh steps in the matter and as such no inquiry could be conducted prior to the respondents taking a view in the matter.

7. Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 reads as under:

"8. Power to withhold or withdraw pension-

(2) x x x x x

(c) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment,-

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;

x x x x x

Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule,-

(1)(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date;

8. Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) and the explanation mandates that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

9. Article of Charge No.1 issued to the petitioner reads as under:

"That Shri Satyendra Nath Singh while posted and functioning as Deputy Inspector General, CISF NZ-II during the period from 01.03.2019 to 17.01.2020, issued posting order in respect of HC/GD Ravi Ji Bhat from SHEP Salal to NFL Bhatinda vide DIG/NZ-II HQrs, SO No. 04/2019 issued under letter No. (904) dated 04.04.2019 (at Srl. No. 02), cancelling his earlier posting order to DHEP Dauliganga in violation of NZ-I HQrs SO No.110/2018 issued under letter No. (1096) dated 28.12.2018, which was in compliance to NS HQrs direction, i.e., a senior formation.

Thus, Shri Satyendra Nath Singh, Deputy Inspector General (Retired) failed to maintain devotion to duty, upright conduct and decorum expected from a Gazetted Officer and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii), (iii) & (ix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of his rank in an Armed Force of the Union - CISF. Hence, the charge."

10. Article of Charge No. I deals with