Disciplinary proceedings under CCA Rules were not applicable after retirement, and dismissal for supervisory negligence was disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The petitioner was working as Manager with the Jodhpur Cooperative Bank and was placed under suspension on 26.07.2004 just 4 days before his retirement. He retired on 31.07.2004 and post retirement, his gratuity amount was not released.

2. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 18.03.2006, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "CCA Rules) and the proceedings in pursuance to the same were concluded vide the inquiry report dated 03.01.2011. The inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner qua charge No. 2 but found him guilty for supervisory negligence qua charge No. 1. On the basis of the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 16.05.2011. After the dismissal order being passed, the present writ petition was amended and the order of dismissal was also put to challenge.

3. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that firstly, no charge-sheet could have been issued to the petitioner after his retirement. He argued that the petitioner's services were not governed by the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "RSR Rules") and Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "RCS Rules") and therefore, there being no provision available in the CCA Rules (the Rules by which the petitioner was governed), neither any charge-sheet could have been served on the petitioner after his retirement nor any punishment could have been imposed on him. Counsel further argued that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules provides for a punishment to the government servant and the petitioner being no more a government servant after his retirement, could not be governed by the said rule and therefore, in absence of any rule or provision of law, he could not have been punished.

4. Regarding the said submission, counsel relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Ors. (Civil Appeals No. 5848-49 of 2014, decided on 30.06.2014) reported in (2014) 7 SCC 260 and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2101/1999, decided on 31.03.1999) reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666.

5. Counsel further argued that the punishment of dismissal as imposed is totally disproportionate to the charge as framed and proved. The petitioner was found guilty of supervisory negligence and the punishment of dismissal for a guilt of supervisory negligence is highly disproportionate. It has been submitted that all the other persons against whom the inquiry qua the same charges was conducted, had been exonerated by the inquiry officer and only the petitioner had been found guilty of supervisory negligence which also is highly questionable.

6. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of retirement, the lien of his services with the respondent Bank came to an end and so too the master and servant relationship. Therefore, the petitioner was not a government servant who could have been governed by Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents failed to point out any provision of the CCA Rules which could govern the matters wherein any disciplinary proceedings could be conducted against an employee after his retirement or any punishment thereupon could be imposed. Admittedly, the services of the present petitioner are not governed by the RSR but are governed by the CCA Rules. As noted above, the CCA Rules does not provide for any inquiry to be conducted after the date of retirement.

8. In Bhagirathi Jena's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund conseque