Charge sheets must be served per statutory rules; disciplinary actions for events over four years prior to retirement are time-barred unless initiated during service.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member(A))

OA.No.954 of 2016 and OA.No.1080 of 2018 have been filed by one Shri K. Suresh. In OA 954 of 2016, the applicant has challenged the Charge Memo, dated 26.08.2015, and prayed for grant of retirement benefits with interest, by quashing the said Charge Memo. In OA 1080 of 2018, he has prayed for quashing of the inquiry proceedings initiated against him in Ref. No.001/Inquiry/2018, dated 11.04.2018, pursuant to the Charge Memo, dated 26.08.2015, issued to him. In OA.No.1080 of 2018, this Tribunal has passed an interim order on 10.08.2018, to keep the inquiry in abeyance.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:

The applicant retired from service on 31.08.2015, as Principal Secretary, General Administration, Human Rights & Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh. He was a 1982 batch IAS officer in the Madhya Pradesh cadre and had served for over 33 years at both the Centre and the State levels. On reaching the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.08.2015, as per order, dated 14.08.2015, of the Madhya Pradesh Government. On his last day of service, he attended office and handed over charge at 2 PM. Handing over of charge and submission of the charge report were acknowledged by the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, around 2:15 PM. After retirement, the applicant settled in Chennai. Subsequently, a notice, dated 05.10.2015, was issued to him. This notice stated that charge memo, dated 26.08.2015, had been issued to the applicant, following the ‘Panchnama’ procedure, as he had refused to accept it. The notice claimed that a scanned copy of the charge memo had been sent at both the applicant’s personal and official email addresses. Enclosed with the notice was the Charge Memo, dated 26.08.2015, and the applicant was asked to submit his written defence within two weeks. The applicant responded on 12.11.2015, denying that he had refused to receive the Charge Memo and arguing that the charge sheet sent on 05.10.2015 was invalid because he had already retired. He requested for withdrawal of the charge sheet. No further action was taken in this matter. The applicant had retired without any conditions attached. As the notice, dated 05.10.2015, stated that the Charge Memo was issued by following the 'Panchnama' procedure, the applicant obtained a copy of the Panchnama under the RTI Act, which revealed that the Charge Memo, dated 26.08.2015, was pasted at his official residence at 3 PM on 31.08.2015, after he had already retired and handed over charge at 2 PM.

3. It is the case of the applicant that he was neither suspended nor retained in service for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, the charges pertained to allegations up to the year 2009. The applicant challenged the Charge Memo by filing OA No.954/2016. Subsequently, Smt. Susan Mathew IAS (Retired), was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The applicant notified the Inquiry Officer about the pending OA No.954/2016. Despite this, the Inquiry Officer informed the applicant, vide letter, dt. 11.04.2018, that he was required to attend the inquiry, with the hearing initially scheduled for 24.04.2018, but later adjourned to 30.07.2018. The applicant has challenged these proceedings in OA No.1080/2018.

4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that no Charge Sheet was served