The timing of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the issuance of chargesheets in relation to an employee's retirement is crucial in determining the validity of departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and also for quashing and setting aside the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner vide letter No. 174 dated 15.01.2014 on the ground that the entire departmental proceeding has been initiated against this petitioner after his retirement in violation of the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

3. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2012 and at the time of his retirement, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. He further draws attention of this court towards the notification of the Government dated 19.03.2013 for taking action against this petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules (Annexure 9).

Mr. Roy further referred to Annexure -14 and contended that from bare perusal of this document it clearly transpires that the period of the alleged charge was up till 31.12.2008. However, the memo of charge was issued on 18.3.2013, which is admittedly beyond the period of four years from the date of cause of action. He further submits that as per Proviso (ii) to Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, it is clear that no departmental proceeding under this Rule shall be in respect of an event more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.

He further submits that the Explanation given in Rule 43 (b) of the said Rule clearly stipulates that departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the petitioner are issued to him or, if the government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Relying upon the aforesaid facts he contended that the entire departmental proceeding is against Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules.

4. Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the chargesheet was already issued to this petitioner way back on 06.07.2010 when he was in service as such Annexure 9 should not be considered as initiation of proceeding under Rule 43 (b) rather it should be construed as continuation of the departmental proceeding already initiated during the service period of the petitioner.

He further draws attention of this Court to the letter written by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to the petitioner whereby he has been asked to submit his explanation regarding financial irregularities based on the audit report. He submits that notice to show cause has already been issued to the petitioner and in spite of that the petitioner did not submit his show cause reply and several reminders were also given to him. In view of the aforesaid facts, the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed and averments made in respective affidavits, it appears that though the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide his letter dated 16.11.2009 communicated to the Secretary, Cooperative Department, regarding financial irregularities committed by the petitioner in the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and asked the Secretary to take appropriate action against the petitioner by preparing Form-‘K’ and Pursuant thereto, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Santhal Pargana Division vide his letter dated 20.11.2009 issued letter to the Principal Secretary (Respondent No.2) communicating him that petitioner has fraudulently misappropriated several crores out of public fund and requested to issue direction to the Managing Director, Dumka to lodge FIR for the aforesaid act. Thereafter, a letter was issued to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply. However, whatever may be the reason, a