IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-superannuation must adhere to principles of natural justice, and delayed retirement benefits warrant interest.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition is instituted by the successful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] in OA 4650/2015. Despite succeeding in a large measure in his challenge to the action against him, the respondent still harbours certain grievances against the final decision of the Tribunal, which have persuaded him to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. We have heard Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, learned Counsel for the respondent, at some length.

3. Inasmuch the respondent has substantially succeeded in his challenge before the Tribunal, any detailed allusion to facts can conveniently be eschewed.

4. A brief recital is, however, necessary. The respondent was a Senior Deputy Financial Adviser in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). He was issued a Memorandum dated 31 August 2015 [“the charge sheet” hereinafter] proposing to institute disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [“CCS (CCA) Rules” hereinafter]. The memorandum contained a sole Article of Charge which read thus:

“Shri CS Malik, Sr. Deputy Financial Adviser, while functioning in the year 2010 at CSIR Hqrs. New Delhi committed misconduct inasmuch as, he, in the matter of payments to QHFs-Quick Hire Fellows in respect of NISTADS, New Delhi, by his irregular and violative recommendation on 12.01.2010 for making payments to QHFs from P-01 sub-head, from which salary is paid to scientists, led to the accordance of approval by the Financial Adviser and thereby perpetuated the payments made to the tune of over Rs.1.0 crore to QHFs in NISTADS, although no such power was delegated to the officer under the existing rules. By his aforesaid acts of omission and commission, the said Shri Malik exhibited lack of absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming to a Council servant contravening the Rule 3 (l)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

5. The petitioner, instead of suffering inquiry proceedings, petitioned the Tribunal, seeking quashing of the aforesaid charge sheet dated 31 August 2015.

6. The petitioner, in his Original Application before the Tribunal, raised principally three grounds to challenge the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him. We deal with each of them, and with the findings of the Tribunal one each.

7. The first contention was that the disciplinary proceedings had been instituted after the petitioner had superannuated, which was impermissible, save and except under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, by the President. Admittedly, the charge sheet was dispatched to the petitioner at 8:35 pm on 31 August 2015, the day of his superannuation, by speed post, and was delivered to the petitioner on 3 September 2015. It was sought to be contended that, as the charge sheet had been dispatched after the petitioner had left office for the day, the institution of the proceedings was illegal.

8. The Tribunal has not accepted this contention. In rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the tribunal has relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Sushila Devi v. District Collector, 2005 SCC Online All 1707 which, interpreting FR 56(a) [Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government servant, who has attained the age of fifty-eight years on or before the first day of November, 2001 and is on extension in service, shall retire from service on expiry of his extended period of service] held that the expression “afternoon” as employed in the said FR 56(a), covered the period from 12 noon till the midnight of that day. Relying on the said decision, the Tribunal has held that, as the charge-s