SRI K VENKATESHWARA RAO vs THE SECRETARY - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38758

Headnote:(A) Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rules 9 and 10 - Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rules 6, 7 and 8 - Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) - Rule 1802 - Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 - Departmental and judicial proceedings after retirement - Withholding of gratuity and grant of provisional pension - Date of institution of judicial proceedings - For the purpose of withholding retirement benefits, judicial proceedings in a criminal case are deemed to be instituted on the date on which the report of a police officer is made, provided the Magistrate takes cognizance - The date of filing the final report, and not the date of cognizance, is the relevant date for determining whether judicial proceedings were pending on the date of retirement (Paras 18, 21).

(B) Jurisdiction for issuing charge memo - Where the President has accorded sanction to institute departmental proceedings, the authority empowered by the rules of allocation of business is competent to issue the charge memo - The phrase "cause to be drawn up" in the disciplinary rules allows the Disciplinary Authority to delegate the preparation of the charge-sheet to a competent authority (Paras 13, 15).

(C) Post-retirement disciplinary action - Departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired railway servant provided they are instituted with the sanction of the President and pertain to events that occurred not more than four years prior to such institution (Paras 17, 22).

Facts of the case:
An employee was retired prematurely. A final report in a criminal case was filed prior to his retirement, although the court took cognizance of the matter after the date of retirement. Following retirement, the President sanctioned the initiation of departmental proceedings, and a charge memo was subsequently issued by the administration. The employee challenged the grant of a provisional pension instead of a regular pension, the withholding of his gratuity, and the jurisdiction of the authority that issued the charge memo, arguing that it was not directly approved by the President.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authority issuing the charge memo acted within the scope of delegated powers under the allocation of business rules following the President's sanction. It further held that judicial proceedings were deemed to have commenced on the date the police report was filed, which justified the grant of provisional pension and the withholding of gratuity.

Issues: (1) Whether a charge memo is without jurisdiction if not directly approved by the President but issued by an empowered board following the President's sanction; (2) Whether judicial proceedings are considered pending if the police report is filed before retirement but cognizance is taken after retirement; (3) Whether departmental proceedings initiated after premature retirement are maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the deeming provisions of the pension rules, the date of filing the police report is the relevant date for the institution of judicial proceedings, as the timing of the court's cognizance is beyond the control of the prosecution. Furthermore, the President may allocate the transaction of business to an empowered board to execute the issuance of charge memos once general sanction is accorded.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petitioner challenged order sanctioning departmental proceedings and denial of regular pension after premature retirement. (Para 1 )

2. Petitioner argued no pending proceedings at retirement rendered charge memo void; respondents cited deeming provisions under pension rules. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

3. Court held railway board is competent to issue charge memo under allocation rules, and judicial proceedings deemed instituted on filing report. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )

4. Under Rule 9(5)(b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, judicial proceedings are deemed instituted on police report date, not cognizance. (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 22 )

5. Writ petitions dismissed; CAT orders rejecting challenge to charge memo and denial of regular pension upheld. (Para 23 )

6. Is the date of filing a police report or the date of cognizance the relevant date for deeming judicial proceedings instituted under Rule 9(5)(b) of Pension Rules?

Under Rule 9(5)(b) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, judicial proceedings are deemed instituted on the date the police report is made, not the date cognizance is taken. (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 22 )

7. Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired railway servant, and what constraints apply?

Yes, departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired railway servant under Rule 9 of the 1993 Rules, subject to Presidential sanction and the restriction that it must relate to events within four years of initiation. (Para 17 , 22 )

8. Is the Railway Board competent to issue a charge memo against the petitioner after Presidential sanction?

Yes, under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, the Railway Board is empowered to administer pension rules and issue charge memos subsequent to Presidential sanction under Rule 9. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 19093/2024 (S-CAT)

C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 19009/2024 (S-CAT)

W.P.NO. 19093/2024 BETWEEN SRI K. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI CHINA AYYANNA KEDARISETTY CHIEF ENGINEER (RSW)

UNDER PCE IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARPH)-495001 MOBILE NO.630360574 (UNDER ORDERS OF RETIREMENT AS PER RULE 1802 OF IREC)

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

C/O SOBHAN VEZZU NO.357, FF-01, GRS HOMES

2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS BEML V STAGE, 2^ND PHASE RAJA RAJESWARI NAGAR (RR NAGAR)

BENGALURU- 560 098.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH L., ADV.)

AND

1. THE SECRETARY RAILWAY BOARD MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.

2. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)-495001.

3. SHRI H.K. DUTTA RETD SDGM/ECOR INQUIRY OFFICER, S1, ASIANA PLAZA DUMDUMA, BHUBANESWAR-571049.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI A/W SRI B PRAMOD, CGC)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS; 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DATED 19.10.2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00474/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW AND ETC. W.P.NO. 19009/2024 BETWEEN SRI K. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O SRI CHINA AYYANNA KEDARISETTY CHIEF ENGINEER (RSW)

UNDER PCE IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARPH)-495001 MOBILE NO.630360574 (UNDER ORDERS OF RETIREMENT AS PER RULE 1802 OF IREC)

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:

C/O SOBHAN VEZZU NO.357, FF-01, GRS HOMES

2^ND MAIN, 3^RD CROSS BEML V STAGE, 2^ND PHASE RAJA RAJESWARI NAGAR (RR NAGAR)

BENGALURU- 560 098.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH L., ADV.)

AND

1. THE SECRETARY RAILWAY BOARD MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001.

2. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)-495001 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF UNION OF INDIA.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI A/W SRI B PRAMOD, CGC)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS; 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DATED 19.10.2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00174/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LAW AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 11.07.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

In W.P.No.19093/2024, petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.10.2023 in O.A.No.170/00474/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (for short, ‘CAT’) where under, the petitioner’s challenge to order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure-A24) according permission/sanction to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘1993 Rules’) and also memorandum of articles of charge dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure-A25) are rejected.

2. In W.P.No.19009/2024, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.10.2023 in O.A.No.170/00174/2022 passed by the CAT, where under, the petitioner’s prayer to hold that his gratuity cannot be withheld by the railway administration and that he should have been granted retiring pension under Rule 52 of 1993 Rules instead of provisional pension and also for a direction to release forthwith the admissible gratuity and to issue regular retiring pension payment order, are rejected.

3. The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer (RSW) in the South-East Central Railway (Chattisgarh)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38758

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND T.M.NADAF
SRI K VENKATESHWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP 19009/2024

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is the date of filing a police report or the date of cognizance the relevant date for deeming judicial proceedings instituted under Rule 9(5)(b) of Pension Rules?

7. Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired railway servant, and what constraints apply?

8. Is the Railway Board competent to issue a charge memo against the petitioner after Presidential sanction?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38758

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.G.PANDIT AND T.M.NADAFSRI K VENKATESHWARA RAO – AppellantVersusTHE SECRETARY – RespondentWP 19009/2024

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is the date of filing a police report or the date of cognizance the relevant date for deeming judicial proceedings instituted under Rule 9(5)(b) of Pension Rules?

7. Can departmental proceedings be initiated against a retired railway servant, and what constraints apply?

8. Is the Railway Board competent to issue a charge memo against the petitioner after Presidential sanction?

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND T.M.NADAF
SRI K VENKATESHWARA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP 19009/2024