Scope Of Punishment Very Limited In Disciplinary Enquiry Completed Post Retirement: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Penalty Imposed 14 Yrs After Misconduct

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur recently highlighted that where a disciplinary enquiry is completed after retirement, the scope of punishment of such enquiry is very limited. The court thus set aside a punishment order deducting 5% from the petitioner's pension citing that the omission on his part cannot be construed as grave misconduct so as to inflict such a penalty.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand added that as per Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, punishment in the form of withholding pension or any part of it can be inflicted only where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct allegedly committed during the period of his service.

"In the present case, if at all there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner in performing his duties in not recommending the matter of the above two jail guards for initiation of proceedings against them under Rule 19 of the CCA Rules, 1958, such omission ipso facto cannot be construed as a grave misconduct so as to inflict penalty of deduction of 5% pension for two years after 22 years from the date of alleged act. Therefore, such situation does not fall within the parameters of Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996.” 

The Court was hearing a plea moved by a retired Inspector General (Prison) challenging a punishment order issued by the State which imposed a penalty of a 5% deduction from his pension for two years. 

The petitioner argued that his due date of retirement was June 30, 1991. However, a day prior to his retirement, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (CCA Rules) was served upon him for an incident that occurred in 1977.

The said incident related to two jail guards who were convicted in a criminal case and granted the benefit of probation. It was alleged that the petitioner misused his authority and revoked the suspension orders of these jail guards, leaving it upon the Government to take action against them. 

The State argued that the petitioner had deliberately acted in a malafide way to protect these jail guards, hence, there was no illegality in serving the charge sheet. It was further argued that a thorough inquiry was conducted before passing the impugned punishment order.

However, the petitioner submitted that though he had forwarded the matter to the competent authority, it did not take any action against the jail guards. It was argued that the authorities had been aware of the entire incident since 1977 and that the petitioner could not be held responsible for their inaction.  

The Court found the actions of the State arbitrary for not having taken action against the petitioner for over 14 years and issuing a charge sheet against him a day before his retirement. 

“Why no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner for considerable time and why the respondent waited for good considerable time of more than 14 years and why the charge sheet was issued to him on 29.06.1991 i.e. just a day before his retirement on 30.06.1991. Such action of the respondent is quite arbitrary.”

It was further pointed out that if the State was so keen on taking action against the two guards, it should have followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules rather than imposing a minor penalty order on the petitioner. 

The Court observed that when no action was taken against the two jail guards under Rule 19,  then there was no reason or occasion to serve a charge sheet for these charges against the petitioner on the eve of his retirement.

“Hence, the respondent has acted malafidely and in an arbitrary manner after a lapse of 14 years for the matter pertaining to the year 1977,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner had taken 8 years to complete and there was absolutely no iota of explanation for such inordinate delay which had caused mental agony and suffering to the petitioner.

"Hence, it is clear that intentionally the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on the eve of his retirement and such action cannot be termed bonafide. It has caused severe prejudice to the petitioner since his retiral benefits were withheld due to pendency of disciplinary enquiry.".

The Court concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed and set aside.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the State that the amount deducted from the pension of the petitioner, if any, shall be refunded to the legal representatives of the petitioner within three months with an interest of 9% per annum.

Case Title: Ramanuj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

Case no: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5731/1999

Click Here To Read/Judgment Order