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:
The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Education department, Government of Tripura on 06.11.1981. She was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk by order dated 07.10.1987. She was then promoted to the post of Head Clerk by order dated 20.01.1994. In the year 2000 the department asked the petitioner to supply her caste certificate for verification. On 17.12.2004 SLSC issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner why her Scheduled Tribe certificate should not be cancelled on the ground of suppression of facts. It was alleged that she belonged to Laskar community and had obtained ST certificate by misrepresentation. The petitioner refuted such allegations by filing a reply. The SLSC passed order on 07.11.2005 cancelling the petitioner’s ST certificate which the petitioner challenged by filing W.P. (C) No. 94 of 2006 before High Court of Tripura. The learned Single Judge by common judgment dated 25.11.2013 disposed of the said petition along with bunch of similar petitions and set aside the order of SLSC. The State of Tripura preferred appeals being W.A. No. 09 of 2014 and others. The Division Bench decided these appeals by a common judgment dated 16.07.2015. The view of the learned Single Judge that the order of SLSC was required to be set aside was confirmed. However, with respect to the decision of learned Judge that the matter should not be remanded to SLSC, the Division Bench differed. Consequently, the appeals of the State were allowed partially and all proceedings were remanded to SLSC for fresh disposal. The petitioners would be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and they would also be allowed to examine their own witnesses.
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
SupremeToday
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
