Smt. Savita Rajput v. State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

: Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) 20/03/2025 Order on Board

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

10.1.That, the records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, may be kindly called for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly set aside / quash the ongoing Departmental Enquiry and Charge sheet dated 19.10.2023 ,in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly direct to pay the retiral dues including pension to petitioner with 10 percent penal interest yearly for non disbursement of the amount of retiral dues, in the interest of justice.

10.4 That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

#2. The petitioner was District Education Officer, Mungeli and she retired from service on 30.09.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation. Notice has been issued to the petitioner to the effect that she has caused financial loss to the State to the tune of Rs. 1,52,98,274/-.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to mala intention, charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner. He further submits that disciplinary proceedings can not be conducted after his retirement as there is no specific rule and there is no authority vested with the respondents for continuing the Disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of imposing penalty. The enquiry has been lapsed and the petitioner is entitled for all retiral benefit.

#4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has caused hefty loss to the State and therefore, departmental enquiry even after superannuation may be continued. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited Vs. Rabindranath Choubey, 2020(18) SCC 71.

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

#6. 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.

#7. 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.

#8. 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.

#9. 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.”

#10. 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).

#11. 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.”

#12. 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.”

#13. At this stage, judgments relied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents require to be taken note of. He firstly relied upon a decision in the matter of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & others v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41, in which it has been held by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that where the Corporation constituted under the Act had initiated proceeding for recovery of financial loss of an employee after his retirement can be continued and it has been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society and Ors., 2013 AIR SCW 2573, taking the similar view. Paragraph 17 of the report states as under:- “17. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. case, this Court dealt with a case wherein statutory corporation had initiated proceedings for recovery of the financial loss from an employee after his retirement from service. This Court approved such a course observing that in the case of retirement, master and servant relationship continue for grant of retiral benefits. The proceedings for recovery of financial loss from an employee is permissible even after his retirement and the same can also be recovered from the retiral benefits of the said employee.”

#14. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra) have considered the similar argument and distinguished the decision i.e. in the matter of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra) by observing as under:- “7. In a subsequent decision of this Court in U.P. Coop. Federation Ltd. v. L.P. Rai, (2007) 7 SCC 81 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 levelled 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. While dealing with the above case, the earlier decision in Bhagirathi Jena case 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”

#15. Thus, the reliance placed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the matters of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Ors.(supra) and Anant R. Kulkarni (supra) is not helpful to the respondents as it has already been distinguished by the Supreme Court in the mater of Dev Prakash Tewari (supra).

#16. 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. Hence, in view of above discussion the Departmental enquiry pursuance to chargesheet dated 19.10.2023 is hereby quashed.

#17. As far as, the retiral dues are concerned which are pending to be paid to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to release the same within a period of 50 days form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

#18. As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

#19. No order as to cost(s). Jyoti Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE