R. Neerathilingam vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range

R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The short point for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the departmental proceedings can be initiated under

Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''), after the retirement of a government servant in

respect of any event which had taken place more than four years before the issuance of charge memo.

The petitioner worked as Inspector of Police and retired on 31.08.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation and he was also allowed to

retire. Thereafter a memorandum of charges was issued by the respondent on 08.11.2008 on the ground of dereliction of duty during the period

from 05.05.2003 to 24.08.2004 as stated in the charges mentioned in the annexure-I to the memorandum of charges. Therefore, the petitioner

filed the writ petition challenging the charge memo on the ground that charge memo is illegal and it is against the Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules.

The respondent filed a counter stating that sanction for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner was granted by the government

in G.O.(3D) No. 85 Home (POL-IV) department dated 15.10.2007 and as the sanction was granted before the expiry of four years from the date

in respect of which action has been taken and sanction was also granted within a period of four years from the date of retirement, the memorandum

of charges is perfectly valid as per Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules. It is further stated that grant of sanction is a condition precedent for initiating

proceedings and as the sanction was granted within the time frame stipulated under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, the initiation of proceedings is

perfectly valid.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. Murugesan submitted that admittedly the events in respect of which disciplinary proceedings are

initiated had taken place before August 2004 and memorandum of charges was dated 08.11.2008 and therefore, it is beyond the period of four

years and hence it is against the provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules and it is liable to be quashed.

Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate submitted that for initiating departmental proceedings against the government servant as

per Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules, sanction is necessary and without getting sanction departmental proceedings cannot be initiated and therefore

steps were taken to get the sanction and that was granted on 15.10.2007, which is within a period of four years and thereafter departmental

proceeding is initiated which is only a consequential action and therefore there is no violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.

As stated supra, it is not in dispute that action against the petitioner was taken in respect of certain events that had taken place prior to 31st

August 2004. It is also admitted that the petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.08.2004 on attaining superannuation. Therefore, the question to be

considered is whether the issuance of memorandum of charges on 08.11.2008 is in consonance with Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Rules.

Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules reads as follows:

(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; and

Therefore, as per Rule 9(2)(b) departmental proceedings can be initiated after retirement after getting sanction of the government and in respect

of any event which had taken place within four years before such institution. It is specifically stated in the said Rule that the departmental

proceedings if not instituted, while the government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, it shall not be

instituted save with the sanction of the government and it shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such

institution. Therefore, the Rule contemplates the institution of departmental proceedings after getting sanction and in respect of any event which had

taken place within four years before the institution. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that sanction was granted on

15.10.2007 and therefore steps were taken for institution of departmental proceedings against the petitioner and therefore it cannot be stated that

proceedings were initiated in respect of the events which had taken place after four years.

In other words, the learned Government Advocate submitted that within four years from the happening of the event sanction was accorded by

the government and therefore the further act of issuance of memorandum of proceedings cannot be said to be barred under Rule 9(2)(b) and it is

only the consequential order and without sanction proceedings cannot be initiated and therefore the date of sanction has to be taken into

consideration for reckoning the time limit as per 9(2)(b) of the Rules.

I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate. As stated supra, Rule 9(2)(b) speaks about the institution of

departmental proceedings and it specifically says that it shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the government and shall not be in respect of

any event which took place more than four years before such institution. Therefore, the legislature was conscious of the fact that before institution

of the proceedings sanction has to be obtained and thereafter the proceeding should be instituted within a period of four years from the happening

of that event. Hence the grant of sanction within a period of four years cannot be a ground to save the period prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of

the Rules. Admittedly, the events for which departmental proceedings is initiated had taken place prior to 31.08.2004. Therefore, the departmental

proceedings initiated after 01.09.2008 is against the provisions of 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. In this case, admittedly proceedings were initiated on

08.11.2008, which is beyond the period of four years. Further, the Rules speak about the institution of proceedings and sanction precedes the

institution. Therefore, as per Rule 9(2)(b), the date of institution of proceeding is to be taken into consideration and the date of grant of sanction

has no relevance. Hence the institution of departmental proceedings by the issuance of memorandum of charges on 08.11.2008 in respect of event

that had taken place earlier to 31.08.2004 is against the provisions of 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and hence it is liable to be quashed and therefore, the

same, is quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.