Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employees Can't Be Initiated For Incidents Occurring More Than Four Years Before Issuance Of Charge Memo: Madras HC

Background Facts

The petitioner was a judicial employee. He purchased two cents of land while in service. He retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2023. After his retirement, the respondent issued a charge memo dated 21.08.2024. It initiated a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner. The allegation and charge against him were that he had committed misconduct by purchasing the land without obtaining prior permission.

Aggrieved by the charge memo, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition. He sought to quash the charge memo. He prayed for a direction to the respondent to process and forward his pension proposal, which had been withheld due to the pending departmental proceedings.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the respondent cannot issue the charge memo after his retirement. It is impermissible except under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. It was further submitted that the charge sheet was issued without due compliance of the Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1978. Rule 9(2)(b) provides that proceedings not instituted while in service shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that no case of misconduct is made out from the allegations in the charge memo. He stated that the rules only required him to submit information regarding the acquisition of immovable property and did not mandate obtaining prior permission.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that the formal charge memo was issued on 21.08.2024, however, a complaint had been received and various in-house enquiries were being conducted by the High Court much before the date of petitioner's superannuation. It was contended that these preliminary enquiry proceedings were considered as part of the departmental proceedings for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. It was further submitted that the petitioner was under the control of the High Court as provided under Article 235 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that the requirement of seeking prior sanction from the State Government was not applicable. The approval granted by the High Court was sufficient to continue with the enquiry and issue the charge sheet.

Furthermore, the respondent contended that upon receiving the complaint, the enquiry was initiated immediately and promptly. It was argued that it could not be considered a case where the bar of four years for the institution of proceedings would impede the proceedings. It was further contended that the allegation contained in the charge sheet, on the face of it, makes out the misconduct and, therefore, no intervention was warranted.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that a departmental proceeding is deemed to be instituted only on the date the statement of charges is formally issued to the government servant or pensioner, as defined under Rule 9(6)(b). It was found by the court that the preliminary enquiries conducted by the respondent prior to the petitioner's retirement did not satisfy this legal requirement. Therefore, the proceedings were instituted on 21.08.2024, subsequent to the petitioner's retirement on 31.05.2023.

It was further observed that Rule 9(2)(b) imposes a limitation that proceedings not instituted while in service shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. It was noted by the court that the misconduct of the purchase of land occurred on 06.07.2000. The charge sheet was issued nearly 24 years later, in 2024. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings was barred by the four-year limitation period prescribed by the rule. The court did not unnecessarily delve into the other contentious issues, such as whether the alleged act constituted misconduct or whether sanction from the State Government was required. These questions were rendered inconsequential in light of the fundamental legal flaw in initiating the proceedings.

It was held that the issuance of charge sheet dated 21.08.2024 was against the provisions of the Rules, 1978 applicable in the case, therefore, it was unsustainable. The charge memo dated 21.08.2024 was quashed by the court. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner employee was allowed by the court.

Case Name : K. Sadhasivam Vs. The Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi

Case No. : W.P.(MD)No.30511 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : RV. Rajkumar

Counsel for the Respondent : D. Venkatesh, Standing Counsel