Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Satyendra Nath Singh Deputy Inspector General Cisf (retired) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Its Secretary – Respondent
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
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 depart....
The timing of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of chargesheets in relation to an employee's retirement is crucial in determining the validity of departmental proceedings.
The issuance of charge sheets before retirement is sufficient to initiate departmental proceedings, regardless of when they are served, thus not violating the four-year limitation for initiating such....
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement can prejudice the defense, warranting quashing of charge memos under Rule 214 of KCSRs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation imposed by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II on initiating departmental proceedings for events occurring mor....
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and unjustified nature of the action by the respondents can lead to the quashing of the punishment order and the direction to refund the deducted pension ....
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
