SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Gau) 355

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Md.Nayebur Rahman -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 568 of 1997
Decided On : 04-12-1998

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Choudhary, B.C.Das, D.Choudhary

Departmental proceedings against a retired person can only be initiated with the sanction of the Governor and within four years of the alleged event, as per Rule 21 of the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969.

Headnote:

PENSION RULES - Rule 21 - Departmental proceeding against retired person - Initiation of proceeding - Show cause notice - Limitation - Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969, Rule 21.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Soil Conservation Ranger, faced departmental proceedings for alleged manipulation of his Matriculation certificate and overstaying in service. The show cause notice was issued after his retirement, and the petitioner challenged the validity of the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was not initiated before his retirement, as required by Rule 21 of the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969. The court also found that the show cause notice was issued more than four years after the alleged event, which was barred by the limitation period under Rule 21.

Issues: 1. Whether the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated before his retirement, as required by Rule 21 of the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969? 2. Whether the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period prescribed under Rule 21?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 21 of the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969, which provides that departmental proceedings against a retired person can only be initiated with the sanction of the Governor and within four years of the alleged event. The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Rowjee vs. State of AP & others and Naseen Banu vs. State of UP, which held that uncontroverted statements in a writ petition should be deemed to have been admitted.

Final Decision: The court quashed the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and directed the authorities to pay him all retiral benefits, including salary for the period from December 1995 to March 1996.

In the year 1953 the petitioner passed Matriculation Examination from Gurdon High School, Nalbari. A certificate was issued by the school as the original was not issued by the Gauhati University at that time. The petitioner joined the training course for Sericulture Demonstrator in the Sericulture and Weaving Department, Assam in the year 1957. Thereafter, he was appointed as Sericulture Demonstrator in the year 1961. While he joined the service, he submitted the certificate issued by the school and it is stated that he has submitted the original certificate issued by the University in the year 1962. This original certificate was submitted and the prayer was made for correction of age in the service book because the certificate issued by the school reflected his age as 18 years as on 1st March, 1953 but the d certificate issued by the University shows his age as 15 years as on 1st March, 1953. The petitioner during his service in the Sericulture Department applied for the post of Soil Conservation Demonstrator (Junior) through proper channel. He was appointed to that post on 31.12.63. There was a gradation list for promotion and there was some mistake and according to Matriculation Certificate, he was to retire from service on and from 31.3.96. Rule 95 of the Assam Service Pension e Rules, 1969 provides as follows :

“95. Procedure-With a view to ensure completion of pension records and documents in time to avoid the possibility of any delay in the commencement of pension each Head of department and office of the Administrative Department, where there is no Head of department or office, shall have a superannuation statement prepared on the 1st of January in each year showing a list of all officers, gazetted or non-gazetted, ho will attain the age of superannuation in course of the next calendar year ie, between 1st January to 31st December of next year. As soon as the list is prepared an intimation should be sent to every such officer due to retire during the next year drawing his attention to his anticipated date of retirement and the provisions of Rules 184 to 188 to enable him to make a formal application for pension one year in advance of the date of his anticipated retirement. The list should also include the names of officers who are on temporary deputation to other department/Government or on foreign service and intimation should similarly be issued to such officer as well as the Head of the Department or foreign employer under whom he is serving temporarily. If no intimation is, however, issued to the officer this shall not in any way change his date of retirement and shall not confer on the Government servant any right to remain in service beyond the date on which he is required to retire. One copy each of the annual superannuation statement prepared should be sent to the Accountant General, Assam, Administrative Department and Finance Department respectively.”

2. In this particular case, no such procedure was followed by the Department but in the end of 1995 the petitioner was asked to furnish the original certificate of Matriculation, that was done but his pay etc was held up on the allegation that the petitioner manipulated the age due to which he over stayed in service after attaining the age of retirement on 1.3.93. The Department did not raise this allegation during 32 years of his service in the Department and only at the fag end of his service life this allegation was made. The petitioner was made to work without pay and allowances since December, 1995 until 31.3.96, the date of his retirement. After that he retired from service on 22.5.96, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 20.5.96 under Rule 9 of the Assam Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India asking him to show cause as to why penalty should not be inflicted on him as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1964. The show cause notice was served on the petitioner after his retirement

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top