Summary of this article
Court bars action for misconduct beyond four years.
Rule 9(2)(b) limits post-retirement proceedings strictly.
Charge memo quashed for violating Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
The Madras High Court has held that departmental action cannot be taken against a retired public servant for incidents that took place over four years prior to the service of a charge memo. The ruling was made by a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice R. Poornima. The order emphasised the need to follow the timeline provided under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Background Of The Case
The petitioner, a judicial employee, had bought two cents of land during his tenure. He retired on the date of attaining the age of superannuation, that is, 31 May 2023. Upon his retirement, the respondent served a charge memo on 21 August 2024 and also commenced a departmental enquiry. The allegation in the charge was that the petitioner had indulged in misconduct in purchasing land without previous sanction.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has moved a writ petition to challenge the charge memo.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner contended that a charge memo cannot be issued during retirement except according to Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. He also argued that the charge sheet did not follow Rule 9(2)(b), which reads that proceedings not initiated in service cannot pertain to events that took place more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings.
He also argued that no misconduct was carried out. The rules only required him to submit information about acquiring immovable property and did not mandate seeking prior permission for the purchase.
Respondent's Contentions
The respondent claimed that even though the formal charge memorandum was dated 21 August 2024, complaints and initial in-house inquiries had been made prior to the retirement of the petitioner. The initial inquiries, as per the respondent, formed part of the departmental proceedings for the purposes of the Pension Rules.
It was additionally stated that since the petitioner was in the custody of the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution, sanction from the State Government was not required in advance. The approval of the High Court was adequate to proceed with the enquiry. It was additionally contended on behalf of the respondent that the enquiry was started immediately upon receipt of the complaint and that the charges indefinitively constituted misconduct.
Court's Observations
The court noted that a departmental proceeding is deemed instituted only on the date when the statement of charges is issued formally under Rule 9(6)(b). Enquiries made prior to retirement did not satisfy this condition. Thus, the proceedings were instituted on 21 August 2024, after the petitioner had retired.
The court further observed that the strict four-year limit is imposed by Rule 9(2)(b). The misconduct in this case took place on 6 July 2000, whereas the charge sheet was served close to 24 years later in 2024. It was well beyond the timeline, invalidating the proceedings.
As the root fault of instituting the proceedings beyond the four-year period was present, the court had no need to consider other matters like whether the act was misconduct or whether state governmental sanction was necessary.
The Madras High Court ruled that the charge memo dated 21 August 2024 was in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, and was unsustainable. Therefore, the charge memo was revoked, and the writ petition of the petitioner was granted.
