Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must be initiated within four years of retirement; failure to comply results in lack of jurisdiction, rendering such proceedings invalid.

Headnote:(A) Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1989 - Rule 34.4 and Rule 34.5 - Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees - Charge-sheet issued more than four years post-retirement is without jurisdiction as it contradicts Rule 34.5, mandating timely institution of proceedings. (Paras 8, 10, 15)

(B) Jurisdictional limitations - The authority’s failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings within the prescribed time period constitutes inherent lack of jurisdiction, leading to invalidation of the proceedings. (Paras 11, 14)

(C) Prior permissions - Disciplinary action for post-retirement employment cannot be undertaken unless corresponding rules are followed, which includes timely initiation. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired executive of a mining company, challenged the validity of a charge-sheet issued over four years after his retirement for actions taken during his tenure, claiming it breached applicable rules on disciplinary proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The issuance of the charge memo dated 26.07.2021 was found to be in contravention of the rules governing timely initiation of disciplinary action, leading to it being set aside.

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings can be instituted against a retired employee beyond four years of retirement as per company rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that issuing a charge-sheet after the expiry of four years post-retirement amounts to a lack of jurisdiction, adhering to the strict timelines set forth in the relevant rules.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; Charge Memo set aside.

Table of Content
1. conditions for disciplinary proceedings against retired employee (Para 1)
2. respondent's arguments on the validity of the charge-sheet (Para 2 , 6)
3. analysis of procedural validity in disciplinary actions (Para 3 , 8 , 10 , 11)
4. jurisdiction and limits for issuing disciplinary actions (Para 7 , 12 , 14)
5. concluding disposition of the writ petition (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joined respondent Company as Engineer on 20.05.1977; on account of hard work, meritorious service and several achievements, he was promoted as General Manager, Chief General Manager and finally, to the post of Director (Planning & Projects) in 2012. After serving four years and four months as such, he retired on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of 60 years. Learned counsel submits that consequent upon his retirement, on 31.03.2017, he addressed a letter to Respondent No.1 on 01.10.2017 requesting permission to join as Director in Sushee Hi-tech Projects, which was not having any business relations with Singareni Collieries. This letter was addressed in view of Rule 16.5 of C.D.& A. Rules, 1989. For ready reference, this Rule is extracted below:

“Rule-16.5: "No M-2 and M-3 executive of the company including Functional Directors, who has retired from the services of the company or shall retire in due course, after such retirement, shall accept any appointment or post whether Indian or foreign, with which the 'Company' has or had business relations, within two years from the date of his retirement without prior approval of the Company”.

1.1 It is submitted, as petitioner had not received any reply from Respondent No.1, he joined in the said Organization on 01.11.2017. While so, he was issued the Articles of Charge (Charge-Sheet) dated 26.07.2021. According to learned counsel, petitioner being an Executive was governed by the "Singareni Collieries Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1989" (for short, the 1989 Rules) amended from time to time. A perusal of Chapter-1, Rule 2.1 clearly stipulates that these Rules shall apply to all the employees holding posts in the Executive cadre. For ready reference, the said Rule is extracted below:

Rule 2.1: "These rules shall apply to all employees holding posts in the Executive Cadre scales of pay of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and to such other employees as may be notified by the Company from time to time.

1.2 According to learned counsel, petitioner was not an employee as on the date of issue of Articles of Charge, hence the Charge Sheet is void for inapplicability of Rules to retired employee. It is submitted, in case of retired employees, Rules 34.4 and 34.5 of the Rules specify the condition for initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement. A bare perusal of the Rules clearly indicates that no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted for an event which took place more than four years before such institution. In this regard, petitioner submits that having retired on 31.03.2017 and the institution of disciplinary proceedings dated 27.07.2021 is well beyond four years and hence, the very institution of disciplinary proceedings is void ab initio.

1.3 Learned counsel contends that even otherwise, a very bare perusal of the Articles of Charges does not indicate exercise of any power to initiate disciplinary proceedings consequent upon his retirement. Hence, the Articles of Charges as framed is without Authority of Law. In 2016 (on 22.02.2016), respondents floated a Tender for removal of overburden and the period of contract is 72 months. At the said time, petitioner was Director (Planning & Projects) and in the said capacity of Chairman of Tender Committee, by duly taking into the views of GM (CM), CGM (CPP) and GM (Finance) who are the other Members of tender committee, the proposal was recommended to Director (Finance) for financial concurrence and to recommend it to C&MD who is the final a