Anadi Dev Dani v. State Of Chhattisgarh

For Petitioner For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/04/2025

By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs :

10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the charge-sheet dated 02.04.2025 issued at the behest of the respondents through letters dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) for the same being unsustainable in law.

10.2 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was Executive Engineer of the respondent/ RES and he retired from service on 30.11.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. Notice has been issued to the petitioner to the effect that he has caused financial loss to the Department during his service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to mala fide intention, charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings could not be conducted after his retirement.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner has committed financial irregularity and therefore, departmental enquiry even after superannuation may be continued. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, 2020(18) SCC 71.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents.

It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings for misappropriation against the petitioner were initiated, but the same could not be concluded before superannuation of the petitioner.

In the matter of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that there has to be a specific provision under the law to take action against the person who has ceased to be in service.

As back as, in the matter of State Bank of India v. A.N.Gupta and others (1997) 8 SCC 60, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have categorically held that once an employee ceased to be in the service of the bank, continuation of disciplinary proceedings was not permissible unless there was a specific provision to this effect in the relevant rules.

Thereafter, in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others, (1999) 3 SCC 666, it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in the absence of specific provision in the relevant rules applicable to the public servant, the respondent-Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant and held as under:- “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 enquiry 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 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry 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 full retiral benefits on retirement.”

Similarly, in the matter of State of U.P. and others v. Harihar Bholenath, (2006) 13 SCC 460, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also taken the note of decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena (supra).

The law laid-down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) has been followed with approval by the Supreme Court in the matter of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana Rao, (2010)15 SCC 322 and it has been observed in paragraph 14 and 16 as under:- “14. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that an employer can initiate a disciplinary proceedings and/or continue the same only in terms of the rules framed by it. It is also a well-settled law that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued.

16. In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding against a retired employee should not have been continued. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, cannot be said to be faulty. We, however, keeping in view the subsequent documents brought before us by the appellant, would observe that, in future, in any other case or before any other authority, the Corporation would be at liberty to place all the relevant documents and to that effect the question of law raised by the appellant herein shall remain open.”

In the matter of Dev Prakash Tewari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and others, (2014) 7 SCC 260, judgment rendered in the matter of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) was followed with approval by the Supreme Court and held that once the concerned employee is retired from service, continuation of disciplinary proceeding is bad in law by observing in paragraph 8 as under:-

8. 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.

In view of the aforesaid binding judgments of the Supreme Court, the crystallized legal position as on day is that once an employee ceased to be in the service, departmental enquiry lapses and disciplinary proceeding is not permissible unless there is a specific provision to that effect in the relevant applicable service rules. If specific provisions are there to continue with disciplinary proceeding, the same can be continued after retirement by following the said proceeding. In the present case, the respondents failed to show anything that they are proceeding with D.E. of the retired employee by following due procedure of law.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned charge sheet dated 02/04/2025 which has been given to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 11/04/2025 is hereby quashed.

No order as to cost(s). $. Bhilwar Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE