The issuance of a charge sheet more than four years after the incident violates Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, leading to its dismissal.

ORDER :

1. In connection with the work undertaken the respondent Hira Lal Duggal while deputed on election duty as Assistant Returning Officer, in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD” hereinafter] in 2007, Election Petition 47/2007 was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. [learned "ADJ" hereinafter] The petition alleged that the respondent was guilty of having resorted to corrupt practices while on election duty, on 17 March 2007. The respondent was, at that time, working as Superintendent Grade-I in the MCD.

2. The Election Petition was disposed of by the learned ADJ vide order dated 4 June 2008, concluding that the allegations against the respondent were serious and entailed departmental and penal consequences.

3. In the interregnum, the respondent had retired on 1 February 2008.

4. In connection with the incident forming subject matter of Election Petition 47/2007, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the respondent by way of a charge sheet dated 22 March 2011.

5. The respondent challenged the disciplinary proceedings before this Court by way of WP (C) 4750/2011, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] and renumbered TA 64/2013.

6. Various grounds were taken by the respondent before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has ultimately allowed the respondent’s TA on the sole ground that the charge sheet had been issued to the respondent on 22 March 2011, which was more than four years after the incident which took place on 17 March 2007, in contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) [Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension: ***** (2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President, (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service] of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 [“the CCS (Pension Rules)” hereinafter]

7. On this basis, the Tribunal has allowed the respondent’s OA and has quashed the charge sheet and the consequent proceedings instituted against the respondent.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the GNCTD [Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi] has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

9. We have heard Ms. Ahlawat, learned Counsel for the GNCTD, and Mr. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the respondent, at some length.

10. Ms. Ahlawat sought to submit that, inasmuch as the charge sheet was dated 25 February 2011, it had to be treated as having been issued on the said date and that, therefore, there was no contravention of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

11. The date of issuance of the charge sheet to the respondent, therefore, remains the only issue in controversy.

12. The Supreme Court has, in DDA v. H.C. Khurana , (1993) 3 SCC 196 examined the question of when a charge sheet could said to be issued. Paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in H.C. Khurana may be reproduced, thus:

“14. ‘Issue’ of the charge-sheet in the context of a decision taken to initiate the disciplinary proceedings must mean, as it does, the framing of the charge-sheet and taking of the necessary action to direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental procee