Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees are barred if events occurred over four years prior to charge issuance; pension and gratuity cannot be withheld without proven moral turpitude involving criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (ORAL)--The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the foregoing submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

(a) issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) quashing the charge-sheets dated 11.11.2009 and 31.05.2013 as also consequent illegal inquiry and Report dated 5.2.14 and orders dated 06.01.2015 and 28.05.2015 passed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as also show-cause notice dated 23.10.2015;

(b) issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the Respondents to grant full pension as also other retiral benefits including leave encashment and gratuity w.e.f. 12.12.09 with interest;

(c) cost of this Writ Petition may kindly be also allowed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents since the Petitioner has been suffering due to malafide and illegal actions of the Respondents;

(d) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

2. The brief facts as noted from the petition are, three chargeheets have been issued to the petitioner, the same being dated November 29, 2008, November 11, 2009 and May 31, 2013.

3. The case of the petitioner and so contended by his Counsel Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi is that the first chargesheet had resulted in an order of dismissal from service vide order dated December 3, 2009 served on the petitioner on December 11, 2009, which is 20 days before his actual superannuation on December 31, 2009. The petitioner appealed against the order of dismissal dated December 3, 2009 vide his appeal dated January 9, 2010 which was accepted by the Appellate Authority and the penalty of dismissal from service was converted into penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated March 6, 2012. It is contended by Mr. Chaturvedi that the petitioner did not receive pension in the intervening period between December 12, 2009 to March 6, 2012 nor encashment of earned leave and gratuity was paid though, he stood compulsory retired. Mr. Chaturvedi contended that the chargesheets dated November 11, 2009 and May 31, 2013 were decided in terms of common order January 6, 2015, whereby it was decided to withhold permanently pension of the petitioner. He submitted that this order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority by showing disagreement with the findings of inquiry officer where honesty and integrity of the petitioner is not in doubt, was overruled. According to Mr. Chaturvedi, the Disciplinary Authority was required to issue a show-cause notice along with the note of disagreement before inflicting the penalty on the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84.

4. Mr. Chaturvedi would attack the two chargesheets and consequent inquiry resulting in the order of withholding of pension permanently by contending that no inquiry