✦ High Court of India · 20 Aug 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 20 Aug 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

20 Aug 2024

Bench

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Length

1,484 words

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India

W.P.No.107 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.08.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.No.107 of 2020 andWMP.No.129 of 2020C.Siddan ... PetitionerVs.1.The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Erode Zone, Erode-92.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakkal Electricity Distribution, Namakkal3.The Executive Engineer(Operation and Maintenance) TANGEDCO, Tiruchengodu 637 209, Namakkal District ... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the second respondent in Ku.No.1008/Nipi.1/Uthavi3/Co.Thani/2015-3 dated 22.04.2016 and subsequent order passed by the first respondent in Appeal Petition in Ku.A.No.007016/426/Nipi.2/Udavil/2016-2 dated 28.05.2016 and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020the retirement benefits to the petitioner including pension with all consequential and attendant benefits within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.NedunchezhiyanFor Respondents : Mr.K.Purushothaman, Standing CounselORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 22.04.2016 thereby dismissed the petitioner from service and the order dated 28.05.2016 passed by the first respondent thereby confirming the order passed by the second respondent. 2.The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the respondents' Board on compassionate ground after demise of his father, who died in harness while in service as Lascar in Erode Division. The petitioner was appointed on 01.12.1982 and his service was regularised subsequently. Thereafter the petitioner attained the age of superannuation 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020and retired from service on 30.06.2014. After his retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned with pension and other benefits by the order dated 16.06.2015. While being so, on the complaint lodged by his brother, who was working as Lineman in the respondents' Board, alleging that the petitioner suppressed the fact that he had a brother and obtained legalheirship certificate. On the strength of the said legalheirship certificate, he applied for appointment of compassionate ground on the demise of his father. On the demise of their mother, he obtained legalheirship certificate, in which the petitioner's brother was also mentioned as one of the legal heirs. On the strength of the said complaint, the petitioner was served with charge memo, which is extracted hereunder:,izg;g[?1jpU/rp/rpj;jd;. gjpt[ vGj;jh; - tUtha; gphpt[ - jpUr;br';nfhL jw;bghGJ gzp Xa;t[ ehs; 30/06/2014 gp/g/ mth;fs; kPJ cWjpg;gLj;jg;glhj jtwhd elj;ij my;yJ xGf;ff;nfL Mfpait ml';fpa Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; mog;gilapy; Fw;w';fs; Rkj;jg;gltpUf;fpd;wtw;wpd; ml;ltizFw;wr;rhl;L? jpU/rp/rpj;jd;. gjpt[ vGj;jh; - tUtha;gphpt[ - 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020jpUr;br';nfhL gzpXa;t[ ehs; 30/06/2014 Mfpa jh';fs; thhpR ntiyapd; mog;gilapy; (jpU/rpd;digad; je;ijapd; ,wg;gpd; fhuzkhf) thhpa gzpapy; 01/12/1982 Kw;gfy; md;W gzpapy; nrh;e;Js;sPh;fs;/ ,t;thW thhpag;gzpapy; nrUk; bghGJ jh';fs; rkh;g;gpj;j tl;lhr;rpah; - nkl;L:h; mth;fshy; tH';fg;gl;l thhpR rhd;wpjH; vz;/K.Dis.5033/1980 (B2) ehs; 25/03/1980?,y; fPH;fz;l bgah;fs; thhpRjhuh;fshf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/tvz;bgah;taJcwt[Kiw1mk;khrpak;khs;60kidtp2ghthap w/o itahg[hp45kfs;3fkyh w/o (nyl;) fe;jrhkp40kfs;4khhpak;khs; w/o (nyl;) MWKfk;35kfs;5Rnuh$h w/o bgUkhs;32kfs;6,e;jpuhzp w/o uhkyp';fk;26kfs;7Rpj;jd;25kfd;,nj nghy; j';fSila mk;kh (rpd;digad; kidtp mk;khrpak;khs;) 12/03/2000 md;W ,wg;gpd; fhuzkhf tl;lhl;rpah; - nkl;L:h; mth;fshy; tH';fg;gl;l thhpR rhd;wpjH; vz;/gK/14912-10 (gp5) ehs; 25/12/2010?y; fPH;f;fz;l bgah;fs; thhpRjhuh;fshf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020tvz;thhpRjhuh;fspd; bgah;,we;JnghdtUf;F cwt[KiwtaJ1jpUkjp/ghthap w/o itahg[hp kfs;682jpUkjp/khhpak;khs; w/o (nyl;) MWKfk; kfs;663jpUkjp/fkyh w/o (nyl;) fe;jrhkpkfs;654jpUkjp/rnuh$h w/o bgUkhs;;kfs;625jpU/khijad; S/o (nyl;) rpd;digad; kfd;616jpUkjp/,e;jpuhzp w/o uhkyp';fk;kfs;587jpU/rpj;jd; S/o (nyl;) rpd;digad;kfd;55nkw;go ,uz;lhtJ (2010 Mk; Mz;L) thhpR rhd;wpjH; thpir vz;/5?,y; ,lk; bgw;Ws;s jpU/khijad; S/o (nyl;) rpd;digad; vd;gthpd; bgah; KjyhtJ (1980?Mk; Mz;L) thhpR rhd;wpjHpy; ,lk; bgwtpy;iy vd;gJ cWjpahfpwJ/nkw;go epfH;t[fspd; mog;gilapy; jpU/khijad; S/o (nyl;) rpd;digad; vd;gth; 1980?Mk; Mz;L thhpag;gzpahw;wpajhy; ,we;j gzpahshpd; FLk;gj;jpw;F thhpR ntiy tH';Fk; bghUl;L mg;gzpahshpd; FLk;gj;jpy; ahUk; muRg;gzpapy; gzpg[hpahky; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w tpjpapid kiwf;f jpU/rpj;jd; Mfpa jh';fs; j';fSila brhe;j Mjhaj;jpw;fhf cld; gpwe;j mz;zd; 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020jpU/rp/khijad; vd;gtiu tpLj;J bgha;ahd jfty; Fwpj;J thhpR chpik rhd;wpjH; rkh;g;gpj;J thhpR ntiyapd; mog;gilapy; thhpag;gzpapy; nrh;e;Js;sPh;fs;.,r;bray; jkpH;ehL kpd;thhpa vGj;Jiwg;gzpahsh;fSf;fhd epiy Miz vz;/19 (iii) kw;Wk; (xxv)?d;go Fw;wkhFk;/2.1On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed and conducted enquiry. The enquiry officer held that the charge was proved. On the strength of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice and on receipt of explanation, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 22.04.2016. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was preferred before the first respondent and the same was also rejected by an order dated 28.05.2016. 3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was served with charge memo after his retirement. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2014 and he was also sanctioned with all retirement benefits. In fact, he had received pension for two months and thereafter, the petitioner 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020was served with charge memo on the complaint lodged by his own brother. In fact, his brother was also made permanent in the respondents' Board and only after his retirement, he lodged the complaint. He further submitted that under Rule 9 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, in respect of Government Servants who already retired from service, proceedings can be initiated, as per which the Government reserves right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with under Tamilnadu Civil Service(Discipline and Appeal) Rules after his retirement except under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. Rule 9 (2) (b) of Pension Rules prescribes limitation to initiate departmental proceedings against the Government servants retired as follows:“2(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the Procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. 3.1He further submitted that the petitioner was served with charge memo after his retirement on 19.11.2015, whereas the petitioner produced legalheirship certificate on the demise of his father in the year 1982 and he was appointed on compassionate ground as Office Assistant. Therefore, no proceedings can be initiated under Rule 9 (2) (b) of Pension Rules as against the petitioner. It is clearly time barred proceedings since the issuance of legalheirship certificate in the year 1980 will be beyond statutory time limit prescribed under Rule 9 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules. That apart, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and he served till his retirement. He was successfully retired from service and also he received all attendant benefits. Now after his retirement, the petitioner has been served with charge memo alleging that the petitioner suppressed the fact regarding his brother and obtained legalheirship certificate for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, after his retirement, 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020there cannot be any initiation of departmental proceedings and the order of removal cannot be sustained. 4.The respondents filed counter and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, charge sheet can be served against a retired officer and enquiry may be proceeded with under certain conditions, and one of them being that the event for which the charge sheet is issued should be within four years from the date of issuance of the charge sheet. Therefore, the charge sheet as well as punishment imposed on the petitioner is legal and valid. 5.Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.6.From the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is clear that departmental proceedings can be initiated against a retired Government servant as per the Pension Rules and no proceedings can be initiated in respect of the event which took place more 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020than four years year before such institution. As stated supra, the petitioner was served with charge memo after a period of 32 years, that too after his retirement from service. It is clear violation of Rule 9 (2) (b) of Tamilnadu Pension Rules. 7.In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 22.04.2016 and 28.05.2016 are quashed. The respondents are directed to disburse the arrears of pension and continue to pay pension as per the Pension Payment Order to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8.With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.20.08.2024Neutral citation:Yes/NoIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderlok10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020To1.The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO) Erode Zone, Erode-92.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Namakkal Electricity Distribution, Namakkal3.The Executive Engineer(Operation and Maintenance) TANGEDCO, Tiruchengodu 637 209, Namakkal District11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.107 of 2020G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.lokW.P.No.107 of 202020.08.202412/12

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Constitution of India