Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 106
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
DR. T.A.V. MURTHY HYD – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
WP/15037/2009
Disciplinary proceedings against retired employees require specific rules; absence of such rules renders proceedings invalid and violates natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Disciplinary proceedings against retired employee - Charge memorandum issued post-retirement deemed without jurisdiction due to absence of specific rules for post-retirement proceedings - Delay in initiation of proceedings violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 17)
(B) Jurisdiction - Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against retired employees requires specific provisions - Absence of such provisions renders proceedings unsustainable. (Paras 10, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former employee of the University, challenged a charge memorandum issued nearly a year after retirement, alleging misconduct during his tenure as Director of INFLIBNET Centre. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were found to be without jurisdiction and procedurally flawed, leading to the quashing of the charge memorandum and all consequential proceedings. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues addressed were the jurisdiction of the University to initiate disciplinary proceedings post-retirement and the procedural validity of the charge memorandum. (Paras 10, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disciplinary proceedings against retired employees require specific rules, and the absence of such rules renders the proceedings invalid. The delay in initiating the proceedings also violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 17)
Result: Writ Petition allowed; charge memorandum quashed and retirement benefits ordered to be released. (Paras 18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner’s employment history (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. counter-affidavit outlines responses (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioner’s claims regarding jurisdiction (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's discussion on jurisdiction (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. issuance of charge memorandum (Para 17) |
| 6. writ petition allowed (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition was filed challenging the charge memorandum dated 09.03.2009 issued by the 4th Respondent University and the disciplinary proceedings initiated thereunder. Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned memorandum and all consequential proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularities, and non- compliance with statutory requirements.
2. The factual background is petitioner, a former employee of the 4th respondent University, was appointed as Director of the 3rd respondent Organization, INFLIBNET Centre, for five years commencing on 01.06.2001. Upon completion of his tenure on 31.05.2006, petitioner resumed his duties at the 4th respondent University and retired on 31.03.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation.
Subsequently, on 09.03.2009, nearly a year after his retirement, the 4th respondent issued a charge memorandum alleging five articles of misconduct during petitioner’s tenure as Director of the 3rd respondent, for which, he responded seeking necessary documents and raising objections to the charges on legal grounds. An Enquiry Committee was constituted to investigate the charges under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS CCA Rules). Challenging the said charge memo, the present writ petition is filed.
3. While issuing notice, on 27.07.2009, this Court suspended the impugned proceedings for a period of two weeks initially and thereafter, the said order was extended until further orders.
4. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent outlines its responses to petitioner’s allegations and provides a detailed account of the procedural and factual grounds for the actions taken. The INFLIBNET Centre, established under the University Grants Commission (UGC) as a cooperative venture to enhance academic and library services, operates as an independent body under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and UGC, and is fully funded by the Government of India. It is governed by the rules and regulations applicable to central government employees. It is stated, petitioner, who served as the Director of INFLIBNET Centre from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2006 was appointed on a tenure basis by the UGC. During this tenure, petitioner was alleged to have committed several procedural violations and acts of misconduct. Respondent No. 3, acting under instructions from the Chief Vigilance Officer of MHRD and UGC, provided necessary information to the 4th respondent to initiate disciplinary action against petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is governed by the CCS Conduct Rules, 1965, and thus, inquiries can be conducted under those rules. However, petitioner’s reference to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, is contradictory, as his claims in writ affidavit contain false and incorrect information.
Specific allegations include awarding contracts without following due process, purchasing equipment without inviting tenders, claiming duplicate reimbursements, and undertaking tours for personal reasons. Charges are supported by documentary evidence and disciplinary proceedings are being conducted as per the prescribed rules. This respondent refutes petitioner’s allegation of harassment, stating that action taken was based on instructions from the Chief Vigilance Officer of MHRD and UGC to ensure accountability. It is emphasized that disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner was after following due process and the charge sheet issued is not a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
Hence, the Writ Petition is deemed premature, as petitioner has not yet subm
