Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement for incidents over four years old are invalid due to inordinate delay and lack of required approvals.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Charge sheet issued post-retirement - Charge sheet dated 14.12.2010 quashed due to inordinate delay in issuing proceedings related to incidents from 2002-2003, violating mandatory prior approval rules for post-retirement proceedings. (Paras 2, 8, 9)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Delay and laches - The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated after retirement for incidents occurring more than four years prior, as established in multiple Supreme Court decisions. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired employee, challenged a charge sheet issued post-retirement for incidents occurring eight years prior, claiming violation of procedural rules and lack of timely notification.

Findings of Court:
The charge sheet was quashed due to the inordinate delay and procedural irregularities, with an order for the release of withheld retirement benefits.

Issues: The court addressed whether the charge sheet was valid given the timing of its issuance and the lack of necessary approvals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in proceedings and absence of required approvals rendered the charge sheet unsustainable and prejudicial to the applicant.

Result: Original Application allowed; charge sheet quashed.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) to quash and set-aside the impugned chargesheet dated 14.12.2010 (Annexure No.A-1) issued by respondent no.3 and departmental proceeding thereof.

ii) to direct the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits thereof.

iii) to pass any other and further order as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv) to award cost of the application.”

2. The facts of this case are that the applicant is retired S.D.E. Khurja S.S.A. Bulandshahr. The applicant was initially appointed in the department as telephone operator w.e.f. 11.03.1973. The applicant was transferred periodically to various places. He was promoted as Sub Divisional Officer in the District Bulandshahr in the year 2000 and further transferred to Khurja on 30.07.2003 where he was permanently absorbed in the service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited w.e.f. 01.10.2000 vide letter dated 16.02.2004 with the designation TES Group ‘B’. He was given 1st and 2nd Time Bound I.D.A. scales. On 31.12.2010, the applicant reached the age of superannuation. While issuing the order of retirement, the respondents used the word ‘Provisional’ retirement. The applicant was served a major penalty charge sheet dated 14.12.2010 under Rule 36 of C.D.A. Rules on 03.05.2011 after his superannuation on 31.12.2010. The charge sheet was with regard to alleged incident of the year 2002-03 while the applicant was posted and functioning as SDE (GE) BSR in the office of G.M.T.D. Bulandshahr. The applicant submitted his reply dated 05.05.2011 to the charge sheet and denied all the charges levelled against him and also further submitted an application dated 02.07.2011 to the enquiry officer with a request to quash the charge sheet stating that it is in violation of the rules laid down.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents have not taken prior approval of Hon’ble President of India since it is mandatory as per rules to take prior permission of Hon’ble President of India in cases where the charge sheet is served/submitted to the charged official after his retirement. Here the charge sheet has been served on 03.05.2011 after the retirement of the applicant on 31.12.2010 on the imputation relating to an incident of the year 2002-2003 i.e. 8 years after the incident which is against the rule limiting 4 year period prior to retirement for taking action on any allegations. He states that without disposing of the representation against the charge sheet the respondents started enquiry proceedings. D.C.R.G., Pension Commutation and leave encashment has also been withheld by the respondents illegally. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the proceedings initiated under chargesheet dated 14.12.2010 are unsustainable in view of the provision contained in Rule 61 Clause (4) of B.S.N.L. C.D.&A. Rules 2006 which clearly stipulates that prior permission of C.M.D. B.S.N.L. is required for initiating departmental enquiry against the absorbed employee of B.S.N.L which in this case has not been obtained as there is no such mention of approval of C.M.D. in the charge sheet. Rule 9 of CCS Pension Rule further provides that no departmental proceeding can be initiated after retirement in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institutions. The law on the subject has been finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases that inordinate delay in initiating departmental enquiry would be very prejudicial to an employee and is liable to be quashed. Cases relied upon by the applicant are as under:-

(i) State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh , 1991 S.C.C. (L&S) 638.

(ii) State of A.P. Versus Radha Kishan, 1998 S.C.C. (L&S) 1044.

(iii) P.V. Mahadevan Vs M.D. T.N. Housing Board , 2005 S.C.C. (L&S)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1327

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Justice Om Prakash, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, AVirendra Singh – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd – RespondentO.A./940/2012

Disciplinary proceedings initiated post-retirement for incidents over four years old are invalid due to inordinate delay and lack of required approvals.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Om Prakash, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
Virendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd – Respondent
O.A./940/2012