The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal holding that once earlier departmental proceedings were quashed and the alleged misconduct related to events more than four years prior to the proposed institution of proceedings, a fresh departmental inquiry cannot be initiated in view of the bar contained in Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The case concerned the appellant, who had served as Director at the National Skill Training Institute (NSTI), Kanpur and retired on attaining superannuation on June 30, 2019. Shortly before his retirement, he was placed under suspension on June 26, 2019. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated January 28, 2021 was issued initiating departmental proceedings against him after his retirement.
Aggrieved by the proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, contending that the proceedings were not initiated in accordance with Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. By order dated September 27, 2023, the CAT quashed the charge-sheet but granted liberty to the authorities to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the proceedings had vitiated.
Challenging the liberty granted by the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court contending that under Rule 9(2)(b) departmental proceedings cannot be instituted after retirement in respect of events that took place more than four years prior to such institution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the Tribunal had granted liberty only subject to the provisions of the rule.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan held that Rule 9(2)(b) clearly places an embargo on instituting departmental proceedings after retirement unless the proceedings were instituted while the government servant was in service, and in any case such proceedings cannot relate to events that occurred more than four years prior to their institution.
The Court noted that the earlier proceedings had already been quashed by the CAT for want of sanction and that order had attained finality as it was not challenged by the Union of India. In such circumstances, the Court held that a fresh inquiry could not be initiated because the alleged misconduct related to a period more than four years prior to the decision of the CAT.
Holding that the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the liberty granted by the Tribunal to initiate de novo departmental proceedings, finding it to be in teeth of Rule 9(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The Court also directed that the retiral dues of the appellant be processed and paid accordingly.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s)- Advocate Jayprakash B Somani, AOR Nishant Verma, Advocate Rajnish Kumar, Advocate Shruti Kriti, Advocate Jeevan R Patil.
For Respondent(s)- ASG K.M. Nataraj, Advocate Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Advocate Amit Sharma-b, Advocate Sharath Nambiar, Advocate Vinayak Sharma, Advocate Amit Sharma-v, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy.
