Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 180
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and T.P.S.Mann JJ.
Union Of India
Versus
Kewal Singh
C.W.P. No. 18133 of 2005,
Decided On : JANUARY 18, 2011
Departmental proceedings cannot be instituted against a retired employee for an event that occurred more than four years before the institution of the inquiry, as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Headnote:
Retired Employee - Departmental Proceedings - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) - The court quashed the charge-memo and orders appointing the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer, holding that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted against a retired employee for an event that occurred more than four years before the institution of the inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The retired employee, a former Superintendent of Police, CBI, was charged with concealing information about pending departmental proceedings when submitting pension papers. The charge-sheet was issued more than four years after the alleged event.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, departmental proceedings cannot be instituted against a retired employee for an event that occurred more than four years before the institution of the inquiry.
Issues: The main issue was whether departmental proceedings can be instituted against a retired employee for an event that occurred more than four years before the institution of the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the 1972 Rules, which prohibits holding an inquiry against a retired employee for an event that occurred more than four years before the institution of the inquiry. The court also cited relevant precedents and principles supporting this interpretation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal, quashing the charge-memo and the orders appointing the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. The instant petition at the instance of Union of India and its officers filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 19.7.2005 (P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Tribunal) allowing the Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has quashed chargememo dated 28.9.2004 (A-l) as also the orders dated 10.2.2005 (A-2 and A-3) whereby the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer were appointed to hold an inquiry against the applicant-respondent No. 1.
2. Facts in brief are set out here. The applicant-respondent No. 1 started his service career as Sub Inspector, CBI and gradually rose to the level of Superintendent of Police, CBI. On 30.11.2000, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and was granted entire pensionary benefits. On 28.9.2004, almost 4 years after his retirement, he received a charge-sheet (A-l) wherein the main charge against him was that while functioning as SP, CBI at Jabalpur Branch in the year 2000, he in his capacity as Head of Office, submitted his pension papers to the Pay & Accounts Officer, CBI, New Delhi on 31.5.2000 along with Form No. 7 indicating at column no.16 that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him. He is alleged to have attached a certificate in his own favour indicating therein that no departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him. On 31.5.2000, in fact, he had full knowledge of the fact that a charge memo dated 19.8.1999 had been issued to him by the disciplinary authority under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, the Rules) which was duly served on him on 10.9.1999. This concealment of information by the applicantrespondent No. 1 about the pending departmental proceedings, against him led to the release of various retiral benefits to him which otherwise could have been withheld.
3. The applicant-respondent No. 1 drew the attention of the petitioners to the fact that the event which is made the basis of charge-sheet viz. submission of pension papers and giving of a false declaration had allegedly taken place on 31.5.2000 whereas the charge-sheet was issued on 28.9.2004 which is after more than 4 years. He pleaded that as per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity, 1972 Rules) issuance of such charge-sheet for an event which had occurred more than 4 years back from the date of institution of departmental proceedings was impermissible. But the petitioners ignoring the provisions of the 1972 Rules issued him letters dated 10.2.2005 appointing the Presenting Officer as well as the Inquiry Officer.
4. Aggrieved by the said action taken by the petitioners, the applicant-respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 28.9.2004 (A-l) and the orders dated 10.2.2005 (A-2 and A-3) whereby the Presenting Officer and the Inquiring Authority had been appointed. The Tribunal quashed the order dated 28.9.2004 (A-l) and the subsequent orders dated 10.2.2005 appointing the Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer (A-2 and A-3) by observing that the provisions of Rules 9(2) (b)(ii) of the 1972 Rules were quite similar to the provisions of Rule 2.2(b)(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, which were considered by this Court. Being the jurisdictional High Court reliance was also placed on the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Narinder Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, l 1996 (2) SLR 270; B. S. Tomar v. Haryana State Minor Irrigation & Tubewells Corporation Ltd.,2 2004 (4) SLR 424 and Puran Chand v. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) RSJ 85. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have moved this Court praying for quashing the judgment dated 19.7.2005 passed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India has argued that
