UNION OF INDIA Vs. S K MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law arises for consideration in the two captioned writ petitions arguments were heard in both the matters on 20.9.2010 and decision was reserved. The present judgment decides both the writ petitions. Pertaining W.P.(C) No.17221-22/2004 the relevant facts are that on 28.08.2000 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India issued an Office Order pertaining to respondent No.1 of said petition, who was working as Chief Producer in Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar whereby the President placed the respondent No.1 under suspension in terms of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules"), on the ground that the Ministry is contemplating inititation of disciplinary proceedings against the said respondent. On attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, the respondent No.1 retired from service with effect from 31.08.2000. On 21.10.2002 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India issued an Office Order to the respondent No.1 whereby the President accorded sanction for initiation of departmental proceedings against the said respondent in terms of Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (Pension) Rules"). On the same date i.e. 21.10.2002, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India issued a Memorandum to the said respondent informing him that the Ministry has decided to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the said respondent. The gist of the charges leveled against the said respondent was that while working as Chief Producer, Doordarshan Kendra, Delhi between the years 1997-98 the said respondent committed misconduct inasmuch as he awarded contracts of royalty based and freelance programmes to the firms owned by his wife, relatives and friends. Feeling aggrieved by the Office Order and Memorandum dated 21.10.2002 issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, the said respondent filed an application under Section 19, Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, before Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi. The primary stand taken by the said respondent before the Tribunal was that the sanction granted by the President for initiation of departmental proceedings against the respondent is in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules for the reason the sanction granted by the President pertains to the events which took place more than four years before the institution of departmental proceedings against the said respondent whereas Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) prohibits the President from granting sanction in respect of events which took place more than four years before the institution of departmental proceedings against a delinquent employee.

(2.) Per contra, the stand taken by the Ministry was that Rule 9(6)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules provides that in case of a government servant placed under suspension the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date of order of his suspension squarely applies to the present case and thus the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted against him from the date of order of his suspension i.e. 28.08.2000. As a necessary corollary thereof, the sanction granted by the President for institution of departmental proceedings against the said respondent does not violate Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules inasmuch as the sanction in question pertains to the events which took place about two years of institution of departmental proceedings against the said respondent.

(3.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2004, the learned Tribunal held that second part of Rule 9(6)(a) does not apply in case of a pensioner for the reasons: - (i) a reading of Rule 9(6)(a) shows that the intention of the Legislature was that second part of the said Rule which provides that in case of a government servant placed under suspension the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted from the date of order of his suspension should not apply in case of a pensioner evident from the fact that the words "government servant" and "pensioner" find mention in first part of the said Rule whereas only the word "government servant" finds mention in second part of the Rule; (ii) in view of ratio laid down in the decisions of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court and Hyderabad and Madras Bench of Tribunal reported as State of Karnataka v R.S. Naik (1983) 3 SLR 285, K.P. Rao v AG, API 1987 (4) ATC 756 and S. Ramanujam v Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries 1985(4) SLR 530 respectively, the suspension of a government servant who is allowed to retire automatically lapses and thus a pensioner can never be under suspension and brought within the ambit of second part of Rule 9(6)(a); (iii) if it is held that second part of Rule 9(6)(a) applies in case of a pensioner the same would render provision of Rule 9(2)(b) [which requires that where departmental proceedings are not instituted against an employee before his retirement or during his re- employment the same cannot be instituted after his retirement unless three conditions prescribed therein are satisfied] redundant and nugatory for in that case the institution of departmental proceedings in respect of a pensioner who was placed under suspension shall always be deemed to be before his retirement; and (iv) if it is held that second part of Rule 9(6)(a) applies in case of a pensioner the same would result in a conflict with Rule 9(2)(b). As a necessary corollary to the aforesaid, the Tribunal held that the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted against the respondent No.1 from the date of issuance of memorandum/charge sheet to him i.e. 21.10.2002 and therefore the sanction accorded by the President is illegal as it violates Rule 9(2)(b)(ii).