Disciplinary proceedings against an employee must be initiated before retirement; a charge sheet issued after superannuation is invalid.

JUDGMENT :

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent corporation.

2. The matter involves a pure question of law, and therefore, the same is hereby decided at the admission stage.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

"A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the charge sheet dated 08/08/2022, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition."

4. The challenge is laid to the charge sheet dated 8th August 2022, issued against the petitioner, on the ground that no inquiry proceeding can be initiated after the retirement of an employee.

5. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Accounts on 5th June 1996, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service, on 31st August 2021 and prior to his retirement, the petitioner was duly issued, 'No Dues Certificate' from all concerned units, where he was posted, during the service period. He next submitted that an office order was issued on 12th April 2021, wherein the inquiry officer was appointed, but no charge sheet has ever been served upon the petitioner, prior to his retirement, and that has been served, on 8th August 2022 only. He submitted that Civil Service Regulations have not been adopted, admittedly, in the department of the respondent Corporation, and it has its own Rules and Regulations regarding the inquiry.

6. He added that Rule 709(gha) of the Working Manual of the respondent Corporation reads as under:-

7. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the aforementioned provision prescribes that if an employee attains the age of superannuation while pendency of the departmental proceeding, such enquiry can be continued for the recovery of financial loss from the retiral dues of such employee.

8. He has further drawn attention towards Rule 709(cha) of the Working Manual, which also reads as under:-

9. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that this provision says that the disciplinary proceedings can be done against an employee even after his retirement, provided the time period of four years has not been elapsed from the date of inquiry. He submitted that Rule 709(cha) is not applicable in the present case as the date of the incident is between 21st January 2013 to 24th December 2013, and as per the office letter dated 12th April 2021, whereby an inquiry officer was appointed, the same is about more than eight years, from the date of the incident, more so the date of enquiry is 8th August 2022.

10. He further argued that so far as the provision regarding 709(gha) is concerned, that would also not attract and cover the field of the present issue, as though the inquiry officer was appointed on 12th April 2021, that is prior to the date of superannuation, but the charge sheet has admittedly been served upon the petitioner on the 8th August 2022, which is after the retirement, and, as per the settled law, the disciplinary proceeding commenced after the charge-sheet is furnished to the delinquent employee, and in that sense only, it would be termed as pending enquiry.

11. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that since the chargesheet has been issued after the superannuation of the employee, i.e., on 8th August 2022, and therefore, the issuance of the charge-sheet itself goes against Rule 709(gha) of the Working Manual of the respondent Corporation, and therefore, the same is unsustainable.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Shishir Jain, learned counsel for