Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL KURESHI, J.
Smt. Sabita Debbarma D/o Late Kalidas Debbarma – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 237 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021
CCS (Pension) Rules - Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 - Departmental inquiry - Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension - While reserving such rights, the legislation was also conscious of the misuse of such powers and injustice that may be caused to the retired employees if appropriate conditions for exercise of such powers are not imposed.
Finding of the Court:
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules must receive purposive interpretation in context of such facts. In particular, the words “any event” used in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) must receive interpretation which will sub-serve the legislative intent. In plain terms, the legislative intent of framing Rule 9 is to preserve the authority to the Government to withhold pension or gratuity of a retired Government servant if it is found that during his service he was guilty of grave misconduct or negligence - latter condition of providing a limitation for institution of the proceedings would clearly be with the purpose of not racking up age old issues and allegations against a retired employee of the Government. However, this condition does not require the Government, nor would the Court interpret a statute as to requiring an authority to perform an impossible task. If the interpretation advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the term “any event” is seen as the event which is the foundation of the allegation contained in the charge-sheet, it would bring about a situation as in the present case where despite allegedly committing serious misconduct the petitioner can never be made departmentally answerable. As noted, the petitioner secured promotion as a Head Clerk as a reserved category candidate. Her caste certificate was finally cancelled on 31.05.2016 and the challenge by the petitioner against this order was rejected by the High Court.
Result: Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AKIL KURESHI, J.
1. Petitioner has challenged a memorandum dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Secretary, Government of Tripura by which a departmental inquiry has been instituted against her. The charge leveled in the said memorandum is that the petitioner while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Education department got the benefit of promotion to the post of Head Clerk as a Scheduled Tribe candidate being a member of Laskar community illegally by way of concealment of her actual caste status. It was alleged that the caste certificate dated 29.03.1976 issued in her favour was subsequently cancelled by the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC, for short) by an order dated 07.11.2005 on the ground that she belongs to Laskar community.
2. Brief facts are as under:
3. SLSC thereupon passed fresh order in case of the petitioner on 31.05.2016 again cancelling the ST certificate of the petitioner. Petitioner filed a fresh petition being W.P. (C) No. 1070 of 2016 challenging the said order of the SLSC and prayed for the stay of the implementation of the order. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on 31.10.2017 along with other similar petitions. Though many other petitioners filed writ appeals against the said judgment of the Single Judge, the petitioner did not. The judgment of the Single Judge thus achieved finality. In the meantime, the petitioner retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.09.2016.
4. It is in this background that the department has issued the impugned charge-sheet. The sole ground on which this charge-sheet is challenged is that the allegations relate to an incident which took place 4 years prior to the date of institution of the departmental proceedings and, therefore, in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules as adopted by the State of Tripura the disciplinary authority does not have jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceedings.
5. Learned senior counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner referred to Rule 9(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules and contended that no inquiry against the retired employee would be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. He submitted that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet referred to the petitioner’s promotions which took place m
legislative intent of framing Rule 9 is to preserve the authority to the Government to withhold pension or gratuity of a retired Government servant if it is found that during his service he was guilt....
The court ruled that departmental inquiries against retired employees must be initiated within four years of the event, but timing is reckoned from retirement, affirming responsibility on the petitio....
The railway administration cannot withhold pensionary benefits in the absence of any pending judicial or departmental proceedings against the employee, as per Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension)....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
