Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1399
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. R. N. Singh, J, Mr. B. Anand, A
Abid Hussain – Appellant
Versus
Housing And Urban Affairs – Respondent
O.A./3269/2022
Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mr. Bhuvnesh Shukla for Mr. Rajeev Kumar
Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees must adhere to the four-year limitation period as per pension rules, and belated charge sheets undermine public confidence.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 - Rule 8(2)(c)(ii) - Charge memo issued against retired employee for misconduct beyond four years - Tribunal quashed the charge memo due to violation of limitation period as per the rules. (Paras 3, 11, 13)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against retired employees - The court emphasized that belated charge sheets should be avoided to maintain public confidence and protect the rights of government employees. (Paras 3, 4, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a retired Deputy Director (Horticulture), challenged a charge memo issued for alleged misconduct occurring from 01.09.2015 to 22.11.2016, after his retirement on 31.12.2019.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the charge memo was issued beyond the four-year limitation period, thus quashing it.
Issues: The main issues were whether the charge memo was issued within the permissible time frame and the validity of the allegations made against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the misconduct alleged occurred outside the four-year limitation period, thus the charge memo was invalid.
Result: OA allowed.
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
By way of the present OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-
“(i) To quash and set aside the Charge Memo No. 10/V-22/(A16)2020-VS.I/AV.III dated 10.06.2022 and order dated 10.06.2022 (A-1 Colly.), Corrigendum dated 29.09.2022 to order dated 10.06.2022 and charge-memo dated 10.06.2022 (A-2 Colly) and Order dated 29.09.2022 (A-3) .
(ii) To allow the present O.A. with cost on the Respondents.
(iii) To pass other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, who was working as Deputy Director (Horticulture) in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) retired on 31.12.2019. However, for certain alleged misconduct committed during the period from 01.09.2015 to 22.11.2016, he was proceeded against by way of the following charge-memo dated 10.06.2022, which is self explanatory:-
Article-1: Failed to hand over MB No. 312, pertaining to above work, to. his successor as per provisions contained in Para 7.4 (2) of CPWD Works Manual, 2014 and thus violated 7.4(2) of CPWD Works Manual . 2014.
Article- 2: Found responsible for payment of false 4,19,000/-. measurements recorded by him in MB No. 312 and causing loss to Government amounting to Rs.4,19,000/-.
Article-3: Found responsible for recording the false measurements in MB No. 312 in backdate for the said work and thus caused loss to the Government due to false payment against the said work amounting to Rs. 4,19~000/- .
Article-4: Failed to ·get the in measurements recorded by him in MB NO. 312, Test Checked by DD(H). The false measurements were recorded by him deliberately and left the measurements unverified by Senior Officers, resulting in false payment to the agency. He thus violated Para 7.10.2(1) of CPWD Works Manual, 2014.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant assails the above charge-sheet stating that it has been issued to the applicant in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS(Pension) Rules and draws our attention to Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 as amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’),which states that no action can be taken against retired Government Servant for any incident said to have been committed by the retired employee pertaining to period of more than four years prior to the institution of the departmental proceeding. In support of his contentions, he draws the attention of the Bench to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005)6 SCC 636 wherein it was held that the belated charge sheet against a Govt. employee should be required to be avoided not only in the interest of Govt. employee but in public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Govt. employees.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi considered the aforesaid issue of validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated after a long delay and it has been held in various OA Nos. 202/2009, 2166/2008, 2525/2008, 829/2009, 9916/2008, 1570/2009, 1578/2009, 1196/2009, 3069/2009, 2415/2009 and recently in the cases of Sh. Kishan Kant v. Council of Industrial Research (OA No. 3737/2010) and Madan Lal v. Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, the Hon’ble Tribunal has quashed the charge sheet issued vide memo dated 30.09.2010 on the ground of delay in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh (Supplementary) SC 738, State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Radhakrishan (1998)4 SCC 154, P.V. Mahadevan v. Tamil Nadu Housing Boarrd (2005)6 SCC 636 and M.V. Bijlani v. UOI, JT 2006(Vol.IV).
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the order/judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 1311/2010
