The High Court · 2025

HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGFSH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 15037 OF 2@9 OR DER: , The present Writ Petition was hled challenging the charge memorandum dated O9'03'2O09 issued by the 4ft 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' The factual background is petitioner' a former 2. employee of the 4e respondent University' was appointed as Director of the 3'd respondent Organization' INFLIBNE"| Centre' for five years commencing on 01'06'2001- Upon completion of his tenure on 31'05'20O6' petitioner resumed his duties at the 4h respondent University and retired on 31 'O3'2OO8 after attaining the age of superannuaLion' his retirement, the Subsequently' on o9 O3'20o9' nearly a year after 4th respondent issued a charge hve articles of misconduct during memorandum alleging petitioner's tenure as Director of the 3'd respondent' for which' he responded seeking necessary documents and ralslng ,.$ "#ra ,ri .. *n .#-C-.lFff*$f; I 2 objections to the charges on legal grounds. An Enquiry Committee '$/as constituted to investigate the charges ur.rder the Central Civil Services (Classihcation, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS CCA Rules). Challenging the said charge memo, the present writ petition is hled.

3. While issuing notice, on 27.O7.2OO9, this; Court suspended lhe 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 (U(iC) 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 furrded by the Government of India. It is governed by the rul,:s and l regulations applicable to central government employees. It is stated, petitioner, who served as the Director of INFI_IBNtrT Centre from 0 1 .06.200 1 to 31.O5.2006 was appointecl on a tenure basis; by the UGC. During this tenure, petitioner was \ :) 3 alieged to have committed several procedural violations and acts ofmisconduct.RespondentNo.3,actingundefinstructtons from the Chief Vigiiance Ofhcer of MHRD and UGC' provided resPondent to initiate necessary information to the 4 1 disciplinary action aga inst petitioner' is governed bY the CCS Conduct inquiries can be conducted under petitioner's reference to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules' 1972, is contradictory, as his claims in writ affidavit contaln false and incorrect information" Ruies, 1965, and thus, those rules However, It is slated that Petitioner Specifrc allegations include awarding contracts withoutfollowingdueprocess,purchasingequipmentwithout 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 tha t action taken was based on instructions from the Chief Vigilance Ofiicer of MHRD and UGC to ensure accountability lt is emphasizrd th.at 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' ' :E&*r.xt 1. { 'rr:: ; :,:tta. :3tta 1t:lF trr ..., r 4 Hence, the Writ Petition is deemed premature, as petitioner has not yet submitted a reply to the charges. This resltondent asserts that this Writ Petition is an attempt to sr,all the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 4tt respondent on the recommendiations of Respondents 1 to 3.

5. The 4th respondent University opposed t.ee writ petition corLtending that, as a Central University esta blished under an Act of Parliament, it was governed by Central Governmer-rt rules, including CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Pension) R'-rles. The Rules are applicable to petitiont:r as a Central Government pensioner. It is stated, as the University has been framing the Rules one by one relatecl to the service matlers of Teaching and Non-Teaching S taff, the rules regarding disciplinary proceedings after retirement of employees wrtuld be framed in due course. In the meanwhile, the issue of petitioner has come up. It is also stated that EFL University is at the formative st,age and certain Rules of Universitl are ye,- to be framed, it does not mean that petitioner can get away frcm the Rules more so because he was an employee of an organisation governed an,l funded by the Central Government. It is implied that he is erutomatically covered by the Central Gover.nment Rules in vcgue. Therefore, the action initiated by t he 4tr, Iti 5 \ is in order. It is argued that disciPiinary respondent proceedings could be initiated against retired employees under RulegoftheCCS(Pension)Rules,providedchargespertained to misconduct during service" The 4ft respondent detailed the allegations against petitioner including awarding contracts unauthoriZed frnancial without following due Process' transactions ald misuse of offrcial resollrces deemed serious and warranted investigation' proceedings were initiated within the permissible period under Rule 9(2Xb) and were ln compliance with Procedural requirements. The 46 respondent relied on judgments supporting the view that judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings at the interlocutory stage was unwarranted' It is asserted that The charges were

6. petitioner regarding disciplinary In its reply to the counter of the 4th respondent' reiterated that the 4ft respondent's admissron the absence of specifrc rules for post-retirement entire Process. The proceedings invalidated the CCS Rules was misPlaced as theY were neither reliance on adopted nor applicable' The respondents maintained that the requirement of Presidential sanction was not absolute and argued that tJle charges justified the invocation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner emphasized that the delay of nearly I T I 6 :\ a year in irritiating the proceedings and further delays during the inquiry process were unjustihable and prejudicred the petitioner's defense. The respondents underscored the gravity of ,the charg,es, asserting that procedural lapses, if any, did not dilute the substance of the allegations. Petitioner countered that procedural irregularities, including vague charges and non- disclosure cf documents, violated principles of natural justice and rendereC the proceedings untenable.

7. Lcarned counsel for petitioner Smt. Goda Ramalakshn-ri submits that the 4trt respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee. The University's rules, framed under the trnglish and Foreign Languages University Act, 2006, did not pror.ide for post-retirern:nt disciplinary action. According to her, CCSi (CCA) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable to the 4ff respondent Unive rsity unless explicitly adopted. The University's counter-afhdavit admitted that spccihc rules for disciplinarv proceedings post-retirement were yet to be f ramed. It is also submitted that charge memorandum lacked requisite Presidential sanction under Rule 9(2)(b). Additionally, the charges pert,ained to a period beyond the prescrjbed limitation. He submits that alleged non-compliance with principles of 7 natural justice, as the charges were vague and unsupported by karned counsel highlighted the necessary documents. initiating disciplinary proceedings' unexplained delaY in asserting that it undermined the credibility and validity of the charges. Heard Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy 8 Solicitor General, Sri A' Satya Prasad' learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Ch. Srikanth, learned counsel for the 4h respondent. Learned Senior Counsel for the 4fr respondent reported in TransPort 9 relied upon the judgment Cotnmissioner, Madras-S tt' A' Bank of India a. Degala Suryanaragana2 arrd BraJendra Singh Yambern o. Ilnion of Indias ' Radha Krishna Murthgl, Having heard learned counsel on either side and 10. having perused the material on record' it is to be seen that as regards the competence and jurisdiction' issuance of charge memorandrrmundertheprovisionsofCCs(CCA)Rulesand referencetoCentralCivilservices(Pension)Rulesis1egally- unsustainable, as the 4d respondent University had framed the ,(1995) 1 scc 332 r (1999) 5 scc 762 ' A016) 9 scc 20 .I I trnglish ancl Foreign Languages University (Control and Appeal) Rules, as perr which, there was no provision for cootinuing enquiry even rf the same was issued prior to rertiiemen t and in the instant case, the chargi was issued almost after an year of retirement, hence, it is clearly without jurisdiction. The above Rules are atso not applicable as the 4ff respondent famod Rules u,hich arc sr:lf-contained and in the absence of any specific provision nrade for continuance/proceeding as a measure of discipline of the employees, who retired is imperr-rissible. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in UCO Bank u. Rajinder Lal Capoora to support the contention that proceeding against an individual after retiremt)nt can only be done rvher<: there is a speci{ic rule which support such an action. ln the present case, as the self contained provisions of the English and Foreign Languages Universitv Act do not contemplat€: conduct of proceedings after retirement, tlLe same is illegal. 1 1 . Irurther, as can be seen from the r;ounter-rtfhdavit of the 4th respondent, at paragraph a(b), it is stated hrriversity has been frtrrning rules one by one related to the service matters of teaching and non-teaching staff, the rules regarding the rpzeazl o scc 694 9 disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employees would be framed in due course'. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that there is no provision for proceeding against the retired employees is to be accepted.

12. Insofar as applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules and CCS (Pension ) Rules is concerned, the averment made in the counter to the effect that 'any Central Government Organisation may adopt the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 7972 undcr Rule 9'wou1d mate it very clear that the said Rule is applicable if and when adopted. The language of the counter would only indicate that they can be adopted but does not assert that they have been adopted. However, in the same counter, at para 4(c), opposite stand was taken that 'the Government of India rules in vogue are autornatically applicable'. Assuming for the sake of argument that CCS (Pension) Rules would apply, according to iearned counsel for petitioner, the charge memorandum impugned will have to be quashed on two grounds (i) President assent / sanction was not obtained and (ii) it is beyond the limitation contemplated under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Pension Rules. The 4ft respondent primarily contended that the method and manner in which inquiry will -T 10 i-. 6 have to be r:onducted is the prerogative of the employer' What is requirecl is, only compliance with the princrples of natural justice, as such, the objection of petitioner is liable to be rejected.

13. In this connection, a perusal of the charge memorandum, would go to show that sanction has been accorded by the Ministry of Human Resources Developrnent' To juxtapose the same and to contend that it rvas not in accordance tith the Ru1es, learned counsel has drawn ilttention of this Corrrt to Stdndard Fonn of Sanctlon under Rule 9 (Art.351) o;f the Centrat Cittil Services (Pension) Rules, 7972, placed at page 1 5O of the writ afhdavit, wherein it l ras been stated that 'Notu, therefore, in exercise of the pouers con fered on him by suLt-clause (1), Ctause (b) of sub rule (2.1 of Rule 9 of the Central Citil Seruices (Pension) Rules, 1972, the President herebg accord sa nction to the depanlmental proceedings against the said..... '. From the counter-affltdavit of the 4ft respondent also, it is clear theLt the 4tr respondent initiated action on the clirections received fiom thc University Grants Commission and at the advice of Ministry of Hr-rman Resource Development, the proforma of the memoradnum was also supplied to the UGC. In view of the same, it is evident that sanction of the President was

2.,'- 11 not obtained at all. Hence, the cqntention of the 4m respondent is liable to be rejected on the s01e ground that it is too basic principle of 1aw that a particular act will have to be done in accordance with the procedure as prescribed or not done at all. In view of the seif-contained Code relating to conduct of disciplinary proceedings on employees of the university, it would not 1ie in the mouth of the respondent to say that it need not follow the same. Further, the 4h respondent contended that existence of a specific bar to hold inquiry was necessary and in the absence of such an embargo, the Disciplinary authority has every power to initiate proceedings post-retirement is untenable as incorporation of Rule 9 and other Rules which permit it specifically, would be unnecessary. The 1aw is well-settled that unless there is a specihc provision for conduct of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, power does not vest in the authorities, hence, the contention of the 4th respondent is liable to be rejected.

14. It is the further case of the 4e respondent that petitioner having not responded to the charge memoraldum charge wise, it was impermissible for him to urge before this Court regarding tenability or otherwise of the charges. It is also contended that except a technical objection, petitioner has not i ! I 12 t::. preferred to deal with the merit of the case whell an opportunlty to reply to the charge memorandum was available with him' In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner submits l.hat the attentibn of this Court to imputation of PUrPose of drawing charges was not to persuade this Court as to the meri [s of the matter but to satisfy that the jurisdictional fact of the allegations being rvithin the period of limitation is con:ipicuous by its aLrsence. The very objection relating to jr'rrisdiction could not have bt:en brushed aside as being a technical objecl-ion as it goes to the root of the matter and the cornpetenc(l of the authoritl, t,c proceed against petitioner. The 4t1' responclent also urged that it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the proceeclings at this stage and if there vras any illegality, the samc vrould be questioned after action is taken by the disciplinarg authority. While it may be true that Court would loathe to interlere in. the interlocutory proceedings of an enquiry, it is very clear from the pleadings arrd argurnents on behalf of petitioner that the objection raised is not regarding the modaiities of the inquiry but to the \rery jurisdiction of the authori[' to initiate the impugned proceedings.

15. The 4ft respondent also relied upon the .iudgment reported rt A. Radha Krishna Murthg's case (supra) wherein 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that correctness of the charges would not be subject to judicial review prior to the conclusion of the departmental enquiry. Even after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the scope of judicial review is restricted to charge based on no evidence. This judgment would be of no help in the instant case as the objection raised to the impugned action is not relating to the correctness or otherwise of the charges but the very jurisdiction of the authorit5r the issue one and more importantly as being in violation of the express provisions of the law governing the field, assuming only for the sake of the argument that CCS (Pension) Rules would apply at all. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in Bank of India's case (supra) to state that strict principle of evidence would not apply. It is necessary to state that the situation of pleading regarding the credibility or otherwise has not come in the present case. The very case, at the cost of repetition, was that the authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings at all. Thus, even this judgment cannot come to the rescue of the respondents in successfully defending in challenging the impugned charge memorandum.

16. Insofar as the 2.'d limb regarding limitation is concerned, this Court was taken through the entire charges to l I l4 I 6' support th,: contention that the aliegations related to period beyond the period of limitation contemplated in Rule 9('2)(b) In so far as thre contention that delay of institution of proceedings, reliance has also been placed on the judgnrent in P.V.Mahadeuaft as. MD' T.N. Houstng Boards ' 'l'he said judgment srpecificaliy held that delaying of the proceed ing itself would cau se unnecessary hardship to an emplol'ee :rnd that would be sufhcient for this Court to interfere rvith the same' It has been pleaded on the ground that the allegations relate to period bef*,een 01.06.2O01 and 31.05.20O6 and there is no explanation forthcoming in the counter-affidavit as to the reason for issuing charge memorandum only orL 09 03 :1009 and this, undoubtedly, is an unexplained delal' wzrrranting interference by this court' The 4ft respondent relierl on the judgment in Braiendra Singh Yambem's c<rse (supra) to support that contention that serious nature of allegatio ns u'ou1d permit the authorit5r to proceed even though it i-s beyond limitation. It was also pressed into service to state that once the assent of the President is obtained, the question of timitation cannot be gone into by the Court. This judgment also cannot come to th.e rescue of the 4th respondent for trvo reasons- i) the ' 1zoos1 o sc.c 636 I I l5 assent of the President was not obtained has been pleaded and urged and the counter-affidavit Iiled by the 4ft Respondent also asserts that only the sanction of Minister of Human Resource Development was obtained Therefore' the purpose for which this judgment was cited would be of no avail in the present case. In so far as the 1'r principle of this judgment is concerned,referencetoPara53atpage43wouldbesufficient to state that it has no precedential value and the said order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India exercising its power under eu:ticle 142 of the Constitution' To highlight the same, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "53: Though we have answered the questions of law framed in this case infavouroftheappeuantandsetasidetheimpugnedjudgmentby allowing these appeals, however, having regard to the senousness of the allegations made against the appellant' in. exercise of power of this court underArticlel42oftheconstitutionoflndia,wedirectthedisciplinary authoritytocontinuethedisciplinaryproceed'ingsandconcludethem within six months in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law -" In light of the foregoing discussion' it is to be held 17. that the discipiinary proceedings initiated against petitioner are without jurisdiction, procedurally-flawed and unsustainable in Iaw. The Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed'

18. The Writ Petition is accordingly' allowed The charge memorandumdated0g.03.20ogissuedbythe4ftrespondent . ,.;.-:i*l.:l:r. :' ,r'a:rar:mr,3&a,raat:r 16 (*. e Universi$ and a1l consequential proceedings hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to release all the retirement benefits due to him forthwith. No costs.

19. Consequently, miscellaneous AppLcations, if any shall stand closed Witness TH THE TWE r+,"t,r.iit*1{r:'ssitil;f :l:[*ul'-liil'Hi"'i?'"n' //TRUE COPY// A SD/ .MOHD, ISMAIL REGISTRAR ON OFFICER To, 1 The secretary to Government, Union of lndia Ministry orX":il:frS^:t}i?:' D""";|"il;;i Department ot Higrler Education sastry The Chairman, University Grants Commission' Bahadurshah Zahar Marg' New Delhi ' '1 10 002 110 001 Ul**li*lUtp"'1!;lf t$s'#li}UigunrfiHilil-??1s"1ff?T]::: 009, Gularat ienolaneuaees Universitv' Near osmanta i:lf:#,g*i,gl',lrs::i:.f One CC to SRI GoDA RAMALAKSHMI' Advocate tOPUCl one CC t'r SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUlr/AR' (Deputy Solicitor General of lndia) Hish court 'or the State 'i:i;;d;;;;i Two CD CoPies' nvo"iuuuo [oDU('] 2 J 4 5 6 7 BSK GJP i I i I HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 r 'r\ E $rA r.,.-' ,:. i-\ e- 25 t:] 2025 7- a 'rt \\_\t., \< )ce ORDER WP.No.15037 of 2009 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C]OSTS