Case Law Details
Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the inquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits.
The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him.
The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No costs.
REPORT ABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 5848-49 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.29550-29551 of 2010]
Dev Prakash Tewari
-vs‑
U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow & Ors.
Date of Order- June 30, 2014
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer with respondent No.2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, against him by serving a charge-sheet and after inquiry he was dismissed from service by order dated 27.4.1988. The appellant sought for quashing the said order by filing a writ petition in Writ Petition No.4328(S/B) of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the High Court held that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Regulation 85 since no opportunity was given to cross-examine the witness and there is violation of principles of natural justice and quashed the disciplinary proceeding by allowing the Writ Petition on 10.1.2006. The order also directed for reinstatement and payment of back wages in accordance with the Rules. Liberty was also granted to conduct a fresh disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the Regulations. Pursuant to the order the appellant joined duty on 26.4.2006. Fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by order dated 7.7.2006, appointing Shri G.S. Srivastava, Mukhya Abhiyanta as Inquiry Officer and it was pending. Meanwhile the appellant reached the age of superannuation and retired from service as Assistant Engineer on 31.3.2009.
- The appellant challenged the continuance of disciplinary proceeding after his retirement by filing Writ Petition No.1919(SB) of 2009 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court relying on the decision of this Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Others Vs. L.P.Rai [(2007) 7 SCC 81] held that there is no ground to interfere with the disciplinary proceeding and directed to complete it within four months by the impugned order dated 18.12.2009. The appellant filed Review Petition No.139 of 2010 and the High Court dismissed the same by order dated 29.3.2010. Challenging both the orders the appellant has preferred the present appeals.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disciplinary proceeding was not completed for more than three years and in the absence of any provision in the Regulations providing for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employee, the respondents could not continue the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant after his superannuation. It is his further contention that the High Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by this Court in similar circumstances in the decision reported in Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others [(1999) 3 SCC 666] and for the said reason the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
- Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that pursuant to the liberty given by the High Court in its order dated 10.1.2006 fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated and as held by this Court in its decision rendered in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. case (supra) thejight of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry cannot be denied on the ground that the employee has since retired from service and the impugned order is sustainable.
6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The facts are not in dispute. The High Court while quashing the earlier disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in its order dated 10.1.2006 granted liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in accordance with the Regulations. The appellant who was reinstated in service on 26.4.2006 and fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 7.7.2006 and while that was pending, the appellant attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.3.2009. There is no provision in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations, 1975, for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the appellant nor there is any provision stating that in case misconduct is established a deduction could be made from his retiral benefits. An occasion came before this Court to consider the continuance of disciplinary inquiry in similar circumstance in Bhagirathi Jena’s case (supra) and it was laid down as follows:
“ 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also relied upon Clause (3) (c) of Regulation-44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975. It reads thus :
“When the employee who has been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the Board shall consider and make a specific order :-
(i) Regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty, and
(ii) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period on duty.”
6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.
7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary inquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.95 there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental inquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the inquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.
7. In the subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation case (supra) on facts, the disciplinary proceeding against employee was quashed by the High Court since no opportunity of hearing was given to him in the inquiry and the management in its appeal before this Court sought for grant of liberty to hold a fresh inquiry and this Court held that charges leveled against the employee were not minor in nature, and therefore, it would not be proper to foreclose the right of the employer to hold a fresh inquiry only on the ground that the employee has since retired from the service and accordingly granted the liberty sought for by the management.
8. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision in Bhagirathi Jena’s case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court and no contention was raised pertaining to the provisions under which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated and as such no ratio came to be laid down. In our view the said decision cannot help the respondents herein.
- Once the appellant had retired from service on 31.3.2009, there was no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the disciplinary proceeding even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retiral benefits.
10. The question has also been raised in the appeal with regard to arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant during the period of his dismissal and up to the date of reinstatement. Inasmuch as the inquiry had lapsed, it is, in our opinion, obvious that the appellant would have to get the balance of the emoluments payable to him.
11. The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the appellant and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations as if there had been no disciplinary proceeding or order passed therein. No costs.
June 30, 2014
Sir,
After retirement from Army, court of inquiry on anonymous complaint is continuing, and is totally spiiled my life,. Is any other way to squash it..?
Sir, I retired from HSAMBoard Panchkula on 31.3.2015 a chargsheet was served in the year 2014 upon me being supdt. failed to engage an advocate in a court case which was dismissed in default as no any file was moved before me by the subordinate inquiry officer proved charges against me and me retiral benefits still withheld what I do now?
I had retired as Asstt:Registrar Sindh High court on 24.2.2017.During my service in the year,2002, my subordinate did not make the compiance of court’s order.Now I have received notice on 14.7.2019 to face the departmental inquiry after over 2 years of my retirement.Please advise me,if there is any law to conduct the departmental inquiry against the retired govt: servants?
Sir, When I was serving during the year 2008, (14/08/2008), a case was contemplated against me on the basis of complaints related to insult to National Flag, lodged by 15 teachers working under me and a charge-sheet was served upon me on 30/10/2010. Inquiry officer was appointed in the year of 2011 and inquiry could not be completed due to change of inquiry officer. On the other hand, I was retried from the service on my superannuation on 31/05/2017.and said inquiry was still pending at the time of retirement. Now, the said inquiry has been completed on 27/09/2018. During the period of inquiry proceedings after retirement, I filed an O A in the Hon’ble CAT and Hon’ble CAT give directions to the respondents to complete the inquiry within 90 days and pass final order in the said period.. The copy of the order was supplied to the respondents and inquiry officer but the inquiry officer did not comply with the order of CAT and he deliberately ignored the directions of the CAT. After that I make a complaint against the inquiry officer for deep rooted biased against me. He did not stop the inquiry and did not sent the complaint to the appropriate authority to finalized the complaint . during this period , he closed the inquiry.
In the present circumstances, What can I do? Please guide me in proper way so that i get my retire befits
Thanks,
Indira Rani
9968661233.
i retired from state govt department on 31.7.2012. a enquiry was conducted on 10.6.13 .I was served with departmental chargesheet on 31.3.14..after giving all replies the procedings finalised in june 2018 imposing a fine of rs 30000 and 10 percent deduction in already receiving pension forever.. kindly advise me the course of action
I have retired Karnataka state govt employee retired on Nov.2014 whether DE can be initiated against that official clause (I) (ii) & (III ) sub rule (1) of kcsr 1966 R/w sec 214 of kcsrs
sir, I have retired my service from a public sector organisation 12/2015.My retirement benefits such as gratutity encashment of leave and commutation of pension were withheld due to pending vigilance case due to preparation of wrong /suspicious adjustment entry for rs.94000/- in 4/2008.I have received letter from management for clarification for method of preparing the voucher in 2014.I have clarified the same within the stipulated time of 10 days.I have not received any Show cause notice till today. i have not received the said benefits due to above pending vigilance case.I am not involved any fraud or negligence in my duty .I am unable to prove the same because of the case proceedings not started. I have so many commitments to fulfil after retirements for want of my retirement benefits.I am not able to bare the legal expenses to move the case to the court of law.Please guide me any alternate source to get my benefits from my employer.
I was retired from semi govt service from u.p as on 31.1.15.for the event of five years prior a charge sheet issued to my name through my office in-charge which was issued on 27/1/15 from lucknow and received in my office on 2/2/15 2.00pm through registered post.Then they forwarded to me by official letter on same day which received to me on 6\2\15.what can happens in the matter under up CSR law.
i read the above article for central govt employees i am group A OFFICER (TECHNICAL)This has happened in my case i took VRS from my office in jan2014.the VRS application was accepted by competent authority and informed on 17dec2013 and i was releived from my service on 18 jan2014 .To my surprise and shock in office has not given me the complete retirement benifits and provisional pension under rule no 69 OF CCS PENSION RULE granted my office has withhold my gratuity and 100% pension (no commutation 0).
after lot of letters/email to competent authorities during jan2014 to march2015 it was informed that vigillance clearance not recd .further on 23march2015 office n delhi (OUR MINISTRY MOCA) issued chargesheet (after 15 months of vrs )
UNDER RTI ACT2005 i got the information from my vigillance dept informing that THEY HAD SENT VIGILLANCE CLEARANCE WAS SENT IN NOV2013
i am not understanding what to do in my case and whom to approach to get my complete retirement benifits i learnt that one HELP IN CELL IS AT CAG OFFICE N DELHI who helps for pensioners pl inform the adress and mobile no if any to contact them
excellent and very good forum for Pensioners suffuring due to wrong attitude of few corrupt /mentally negative approch officers in govt dept
PL HELP
sir,what about the victimize who is not aware till superannuation that the departmental inquiry is pending against him due to which his retirement benefits are with held by the department.but when he inquired with the office which is 750 km away from delhi,they told that in the absence of vigilance clearance from the head office, delhi, your dues on retirement nad ppo can’t be prepared. then when inquiry is made with delhi office it is told that they have not received any such letter about vigilance clearance or any DE is pending in this office.the victimize has become pendulum in between neemuch and delhi office !
when an inquiry made through some reliable source it is told that some 3-4 years back a charge sheet was prepared and has been sent to delhi office over which action is showing pending !
i knew that, that the period 2009-2012 was the worst period in the history when the employees were brutely socially crushed by making the group of 4-5 persons coccus using the power the way they desire by empowered authority.that time the fear of termination and suspension was common among all.it would be sufficient to quote here that the freedom of living was totally at hault, every employee was so fearful and were living under tension that one day their wives went to distt. magistrate office to appeal to the collector that it has become difficult for them to live in such tense situation and circumstances. you will not believe that the authority was so cruel that he took it otherwise and issued a memo calling explaination for inititiating action under ccs rules of each employee whose wife went to the collector for making his complaint.
it seems that he has made the chargesheet only because he wanted me to take voluntary retirement which i have not taken. he tried his levelbest to disturbed my peace from every corner and in the end he has used the tool of filing the chargesheet against me of which i am totally unaware.
kindly advice me the course of action for obtaining my retirement benefits.
Officials don’t go to court not only for fear, it is expensive and prohibitive. For a honest govt servant whose income is only salary, going to court is very expensive and not commensurate with the justice he seeks. Govt has unlimited resources to go on appealing and if they loose no body is made responsible and fined.
Yes,Action should be taken on erring officers for the abnormal delay and lacuna in following disciplinary proceedings. Details of Officials from various departments should be called and no of officers under suspension and proceedings of department inquiry should be seen and abnormal delay in dealing Disciplinary cases should be checked and courts should take sumo-to in dealing with such delays so that justice will be given to the Government officials.Many government officials do not approach court due to fear.
Does the govt doesnt know the rules of the disciplinary proceedings as much as the procedures to be followed. Apart from the agony to the accused who won the case now, govt has lost huge money belonging to the tax payer/s. Who is responsible for (1) Making a case and loosing it on technical grounds, (2) Number of mandays lost from the prosecution/govt side towards this inquiry, (3) Number of days the employee didnt work (due to suspension/dismissal) and got the financial benefits.
I call upon the govt at the centre of the day, to fix the responsibility for the colossal loss of money, mandays of so many people involved in the entire episode and take stringent action.
Hon’ble Supreme Court should have dealt on this, (if not dealt) in the public interest in the truest sense of the word.