The Court held that service of a charge memo, under applicable rules, must follow prescribed methods, and evading such protocols does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings against a public servant.

ORDER :

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

These two Writ Petitions have been filed by K.Suresh, the petitioner in O.A.No. 954 of 2016 and in O.A.No. 1080 of 2018, aggrieved by the common order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dismissing both the Original Applications.

2. Both the Original Applications and both the Writ Petitions relate to the same bundle of facts. Arguments were also advanced in common. We would therefore passed a common order in both the Writ Petitions.

3. The petitioner K.Suresh was an IAS Officer of the 1982 batch in Madhya Pradesh cadre. He had served for over 33 years at the Centre and State levels. He was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2015. He was to have retired as Principal Secretary, General Administration, Human Rights and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh.

4. It is his contention that on the last date of his service on 31.08.2015, he attended office till 02.00 p.m., and thereafter at around 02.15 p.m submitted the form relating to handing over of charge, which was acknowledged by the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administrative Department. He then left his office. During the arguments, it emanated that he had gone over to have tea with the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

5. It is his further contention that he came down to Chennai to settle down when he received a notice dated 05.10.2015 which stated that a charge memo dated 26.08.2015 had been issued to him following the panchanama procedure and that he had refused to accept the same. In the notice, it was also stated that a scanned copy of the charge memo had also been sent to his personal and official E-mail addresses. The charge memo was also enclosed along with the notice. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence within a period of two weeks.

6. The petitioner issued a reply on 12.11.2015 denying the allegation that he had refused to receive the charge memo and pointed out that the charge memo sent on 05.10.2015 was invalid since he had already retired from service. He therefore sought withdrawal of the charge memo.

7. The petitioner then obtained information under the Right to Information Act and came to know that the charge memo dated 26.06.2008 had been pasted on his official residence at 03.00 p.m., on 31.08.2015 after he had handed over charge at 02.15 p.m. and had left the office, presumably having retired.

8. It was contended that he was neither suspended from service nor retained in service to initiate or continue the disciplinary proceedings. The charge memo related to the period 2005, when he was functioning as Chairman of Chennai Port Trust. It was contended that the issuance of the charge memo on the date of his retirement was impermissible.

9. The petitioner filed O.A.No. 954 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, challenging the charge memo. Even when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and the petitioner was called to attend the enquiry proceedings. Claiming that the issuance of charge memo requires delivery of the charge memo in person and contending that the charge memo had never been served on him in accordance with due procedure, and questioning the enquiry proceedings, he filed O.A.No. 1080 of 2018 again before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.

10. The petitioner contended that service of notices and process in a litigation is different from service of a charge memo in disciplinary proceedings. He contended that the charges related to the years 2005