Departmental Proceedings Instituted Before Retirement Can Continue; Punishment May Be Imposed Irrespective Of Pecuniary Loss : Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The employee was an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force (RPF), posted at CIB, Jamalpur. He was placed under suspension and served with a charge memorandum. The employee challenged the charge-sheet by filing Writ Petition. The Single Judge declined to quash the disciplinary proceedings but permitted the disciplinary authority to proceed with the adjudication. It directed the authority to strictly follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India.

The Single Judge order was challenged in an appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench. It was held that the dismissal would not bar the employee from challenging the final punishment order. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in an order, which imposed a penalty of withholding 20% of the employee's monthly pension for a period of three years. The punishment was imposed after the employee had already retired upon attaining superannuation. Aggrieved, the employee filed a writ petition. The Single Judge, through order dated May 1, 2019, set aside the punishment order and directed the release of all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India filed an appeal.

It was submitted by the appellants, the Union of India, that Rule 9(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 states that any departmental proceedings instituted before retirement shall be deemed to continue after the employee's final retirement, as if he had remained in service. It was argued that the Single Judge erred in holding that the imposition of punishment was faulty due to a delay and because no leave was obtained from the court to pass the final order. It was contended that the interim order only gave the department the liberty to seek leave, but the failure to do so did not extinguish the department's right to impose a penalty.

Further it was contended that the serious allegations were made against the petitioner. Because of his negligence and inaction, the Department suffered the loss because fake Railway tickets were sold which resulted as loss to the Railway Administration. The reliance was placed on the judgment in State of West Bengal v. Pronab Chakraborty to argue that even in the absence of pecuniary loss, a punishment can be validly imposed under the Pension Rules.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent-employee that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under the provisions of the RPF Rules, 1987. Further charge-sheet was not issued under Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules. Thus, enquiry cannot continue under Rule 9(2) of the Pension Rules. It was further contended that upon his superannuation on February 28, 2012, the employer-employee relationship ceased to exist, therefore, any departmental enquiry came to an end.

Furthermore, it was contended that as per Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules, the punishment can be imposed only in cases involving allegations of grave misconduct that resulted in pecuniary loss to the government. It was argued that the charge-sheet did not allege grave misconduct as defined in the rules. Further no actual pecuniary loss was caused to the Department.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that joint reading of Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 makes it clear that if any departmental proceeding was initiated before an employee retired from service, it shall continue even after retirement as per provisions in the Rules.

It was held that the Single Judge erred in concluding that the disciplinary proceeding initiated under the RPF Rules could not culminate in punishment under the Pension Rules. It was found by the Court that Rule 9(2) permits the continuation and conclusion of any departmental proceeding that was instituted while the railway employee was in service. It was further observed that as per Rule 9(2)(a), the employer-employee relationship does not cease upon retirement. Further the enquiry shall be deemed to continue as if the employee had continued in service. Therefore, the unconditional retirement becomes irrelevant.

The Supreme Court's judgment in State of West Bengal v. Pronab Chakraborty was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that even in the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, it is open to the employer to continue departmental proceedings after retirement on account of grave misconduct or negligence.

It was noted by the Court that the charges included allegations of connivance in a fake tickets and gross negligence. Further the sale of fake tickets certainly caused pecuniary loss to the department. Consequently, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside.

With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed by the court.

Case Name : Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Verma & Anr.

Case No. : FMA/1398/2019

Counsel for the Appellants : Sanajit Kumar Ghosh

Counsel for the Respondent : Achin Kr. Majumdar