Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3828

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Chandra Deo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.105/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.J. Ishtiaque
For the Respondents: Shri Shree Prakash Rai

Departmental proceedings against an employee suspended before retirement are deemed instituted on the date of suspension pursuant to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021; however, such inquiries must be concluded within a reasonable time frame to avoid prejudice to the retired employee.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 - Rule 8 - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rules 10, 14 and 15 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Disciplinary proceedings against retired employee - Limitation - Deeming provision under Rule 8(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 stipulates that where a Government servant is placed under suspension prior to retirement, proceedings are deemed to have been instituted on the date of suspension - Four-year limitation period is not violated if suspension occurred within that timeframe. (Para 11)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in issuance of charge memorandum - While mere delay does not automatically vitiate proceedings, inquiries must be conducted with due expedition, especially post-retirement - Balance between administrative discipline and fairness to the delinquent employee is required. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
Applicant served as Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner and was suspended on 01.04.2021 shortly before retirement on 30.06.2021. Departmental proceedings were sanctioned on 29.07.2024 and a Memorandum of Charges issued on 30.07.2024 regarding alleged irregularities occurring between 2018-2021. Applicant challenged the delay in initiation of proceedings and the consequent withholding of retiral benefits.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the proceedings must be deemed instituted on the date of suspension, thus rejecting the plea of limitation. It declined to quash the charge memorandum, emphasizing that the petitioner did not demonstrate specific prejudice. However, recognizing the impact of prolonged proceedings on a pensioner, the Tribunal directed the respondents to conclude the inquiry within four months.

Issues: Whether the departmental proceedings are barred by limitation and whether the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memorandum warrants its quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the deemed institution clause of the pension rules, proceedings effectively commence from the suspension date. While judicial interference at the interlocutory stage of a charge-sheet is generally discouraged unless there is a lack of jurisdiction, there is a legal obligation on the employer to conclude disciplinary inquiries against a retiree within a reasonable time.

Result: Application disposed of with directions for time-bound conclusion of the inquiry.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the challenge of suspension and charge memorandum. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding limitation and the impact of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. statutory interpretation of rule 8 regarding deemed institution of departmental proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. balancing administrative delay with prejudice to the charged employee. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court directions for expediting completion of inquiry within a fixed timeframe. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Heard Shri S.J. Ishtiaque, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shree Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following main relief(s):-

(i) to issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 29-07-2024 and Memorandum Charges dated 30-07-2024 passed in the name of the President and issued by the Respondent No.1 being arbitrary, illegal, constitutionally void, discriminatory, cryptic and in violation of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titles as Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar High Court of Delhi & others.

(ii) to issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents quashing and setting aside the impugned order of suspension dated 01.04.2021.

(iii) to issue an order directing the respondents for releasing the all retirements benefits and pay the consequential arrears of pay and allowances with an exemplary interest rate.”

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are as follows:-

3.1 The applicant joined the Labour Welfare Organization on 01.12.1995 as Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner and during the course of service, earned promotions from time to time. He lastly served as Welfare Commissioner (Central), Allahabad (Prayagraj) and retired on 30.06.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3.2 The applicant, before his superannuation, was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.04.2021 in the name of the President under Rule 10 (1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated. During suspension, his headquarters was shifted from Allahabad to the office of Chief Welfare Commissioner (Central), New Delhi and he was made entitled to subsistence allowance initially at 50% under FR-53.

3.3 Soon after suspension, the applicant tested positive for COVID-19 and remained admitted as an indoor patient at Asha Hospital, Prayagraj from 13.04.2021 to 13.05.2021. On medical grounds, he requested vide representation dated 10.06.2021 that his headquarters during suspension be retained at Allahabad instead of New Delhi. The said request was rejected by the Ministry vide letter dated 14.06.2021. Thereafter, by order dated 18.06.2021, the suspension was extended up to 30.06.2021 (date of superannuation) and subsistence allowance was reduced by 50% on the allegation that he did not report at the designated headquarters.

3.4 The applicant retired on 30.06.2021 while under suspension. According to him, despite lapse of considerable time after retirement, only provisional pension was sanctioned and other retiral dues, including gratuity and leave encashment, were withheld. He made several representations and also approached higher authorities and the grievance cell between 2021 and 2023 seeking release of retiral benefits, but no effective action was taken.

3.5 After more than three years from the date of suspension and retirement, the applicant received an order dated 29.07.2024 whereby the President accorded sanction under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 for institution of departmental proceedings against him. On the very next day, i.e., 30.07.2024, a Memorandum of Charges wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3828

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)Chandra Deo – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.105/2025

Departmental proceedings against an employee suspended before retirement are deemed instituted on the date of suspension pursuant to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021; however, such inquiries must be concluded within a reasonable time frame to avoid prejudice to the retired employee.

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Chandra Deo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.105/2025