A charge memo against a retired government employee is invalid if issued beyond the four-year limitation period and is legally unsustainable if based on vague charges.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he had retired from service as Deputy Director of Industrial and Cooperatives (IC) on 31.03.2017, having completed over 25 years of service since his appointment in 1983; that he maintained an unblemished service record throughout his tenure; that upon attaining the age of superannuation and retiring from service on 31.03.2017, his retiral benefits were duly sanctioned; and that he is in receipt of his pension.

3. The petitioner contends that while he was leading a retired life, he was served with a charge memo dated 31.03.2021, exactly on the last date of completion of four years after his retirement on 31.03.2017, attributing imputations of misconduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity in the discharge of his duties, thereby alleging a violation of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules , 1973.

4. The petitioner further contended that the proposal to take action under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is legally untenable, as the proceedings are barred by the limitation of four year period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules , 1978 (for short ‘pension rules’).

5. The petitioner further contends that the impugned charge memo was issued pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Government in G.O.(D) No. 18, MSME [EII(2)] Department, dated 30.03.2021, acting on a letter from the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce dated 24.03.2021; that the memo contains charges alleging the receipt of illegal gratification in several forms, thereby accusing the petitioner of abusing his official power, committing a breach of trust, and misusing his official position for personal pecuniary gain, which actions it is alleged make him liable for prosecution under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules , 1973.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that, the respondent, while issuing the impugned charge memo, enclosed the requisite statements namely, i) the statement of charges under Annexure-I; ii) the statement of allegations, namely the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the charges, under Annexure-II; and iii) the list of documents relied upon for the charges under Annexure-III.

7. The petitioner also contends that from the details as furnished in Annexure-II, it is alleged that he is the receipt of illegal gratification amounting to ₹61,773/- during the period from 28.06.2013 to 29.08.2017. Based on these allegations, the respondents have invoked Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to initiate disciplinary action.

8. The petitioner contends that the respondent, while alleging (in Annexure-II) of he having received illegal gratification between 28.06.2013 and 29.08.2017, had invoked Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules: that the respondent could not have invoked the said rule because the alleged events took place more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings under the impugned charge memo.

9. The petitioner further contends that, the respondents in an attempt to bring their action within the four-year limitation period, have alleged the receipt of illegal gratification on 19.05.2017 and 29.08.2017; that the said two dates are admittedly after the petitioner's retirement from service on 31.03.2017; and thus, the alleged acts cannot be attributed to discharge of duties in his off