Kulwant Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the charge-sheet dated 28.5.2012 (Annex. 1) whereby it was proposed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (referred to herein after as ''the Pension Rules, 1996'') read with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (referred to herein after as ''the CCA Rules''). The memorandum of charges as served to the petitioner reads as follows:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the charge-sheet on the ground that the charge of delinquency which is attributed to the petitioner is that the petitioner did not comply with the order dated 10.12.2002 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Claim Case No. 33/98 and the order dated 30.5.2005 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 45/2004 and did not make the payment made to 11 workmen (claimants before the Labour Court) in proceedings under Rule 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also took the workmen on "pateya vetan" without seeking financial sanction from the competent authority.

He referred to Rule 7(2)(b) of the Pension Rules and contends that as the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner relates to an incident of the year 2005 and as the proceeding was instituted after more than one year of the petitioner''s retirement on 30.4.2011 for the alleged delinquency of more than 4 years before the date of institution of the disciplinary proceeding, such charge-sheet cannot be sustained in view of the mandatory nature of the aforesaid Rule.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He attempted to defend the impugned charge-sheet contending that as a consequence of the petitioner''s delinquency, the Government had to pay a sum of Rs. 49,23,150/- to the workmen in the month of July, 2011 and as such, the charge-sheet discloses a continuous cause of action and should not be quashed on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Rule 7(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1996.

I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned charge-sheet.

Rule 7(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1996, which is germane for deciding the controversy, is reproduced below for the sake of convenience:--

"7(2)(b). The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his reemployment--

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor,

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor 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."

The Rule clearly prohibits institution of departmental proceedings against a retired government servant in respect of any event which Wok place before four years from the date of institution of such proceedings. The event for which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted is the so-called non-procurement of financial sanction before reinstating 11 labourers in compliance of the Labour Court''s order. Since the said event occurred in the year 2005, the charge-sheet could not have been issued to the petitioner for such delinquency after his retirement in the year 2011. In this view of the matter, the impugned charge-sheet Annex. 1 is vitiated as being contrary to mandatory provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Pension Rules, 1996 and cannot be sustained.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned charge-sheet Annex. 1 dated 28.5.2012 is hereby declared illegal and thus, quashed and set-aside. No order as to cost.