2022 Supreme(Mad) 3116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
M.S. Sellandi - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 15838 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Decided On : 26-07-2022
For the Petitioner:G. Ethirajulu, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, M. Bindran, Additional Government Pleader, R2 & R4, R. Babu, R3, R. Balaji, Advocates.
Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within the permissible period as per Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules.
Headnote:
Pension Rules - Disciplinary Action Post Retirement - The court quashed the charge memo as it was issued beyond the period of four years from the date of retirement, violating Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1987.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired official, challenged a charge memo issued after five years from retirement, arguing that disciplinary action cannot be initiated post-retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge memo was issued beyond the permissible period under Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, and thus quashed the memo.
Issues: Validity of disciplinary action post-retirement and applicability of Tamilnadu Pension Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within four years of retirement as per Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, and the charge memo in this case was issued beyond the permissible period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge memo, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned charge memo in Memorandum No.64558/DL6/SETC/2012 dated 06.06.2013 issued by the second respondent and consequential Enquiry Notice Proceeding No.64558/DL6/SETC/2012 dated 20.04.2015 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.)
1. The charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 06.06.2013, is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Trainee Assistant Engineer at the then Anna Transport Corporation Limited, during the year 1973 [now, renamed as Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. The petitioner was working as Manager and retired from service on 31.01.2008.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the impugned charge memo was issued after a lapse of about five years from the date of retirement in proceeding, dated 06.06.2013. Thus, the charge memo itself is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the Tamilnadu Pension Rules is not applicable and no action can be initiated after retirement as far as the Transport Officials are concerned. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Corporation Employees Conduct Rules stated that there is no Rule to initiate proceedings after retirement and therefore, the charge memo is to be quashed.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, made a submission that the Tamilnadu Pension Rules is adopted by the Transport Corporations in respect of the retired officials. The officials in the Managerial Cadre are appointed by the Government and the Government salary is fixed for these officials. This apart, the State Transport Corporation have adopted the Tamilnadu Pension Rules as far as the retired officials are concerned. Therefore, applying Rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, actions were initiated.
6. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation has a separate Pension Rule viz., The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Pension Fund Rules. In respect of persons against whom departmental action is pending at the time of retirement, those delinquent officers are eligible to get only provisional pension and such provisional pension shall be sanctioned only by adopting the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. The Senior Deputy Managers/Manager cadre Officers of the State Transport Corporation are being appointed only by the Government and their salary is on par with Government Officers as against the Self Regulated Salary System for the Lower Grade Officers and other employees of the second respondent-Corporation. Therefore, in respect of disciplinary action post retirement, the Rules and Regulations applicable to the State Government Staff (i.e) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is applicable to the writ petitioner. The Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules reads as follows:
"9(2)(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service,whether before his retirement or during his reemployment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(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 Government may direct an 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."
In the present case, the above said rule has been scrupulously followed and sanction from the Government was obtained to proceed with disciplinary action against the retired officers also by the above Government Letter No.8705/D2/2012, dated 1