M C D Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted facts in this case are that the Respondent, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 30th June, 2002. However, vide order dated 28th June, 2002 (i.e., two days before his retirement) served on the Respondent on 29th June, 2002, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, chargesheet was issued leveling the allegations that the Respondent had, sometime in May, 1995, fraudulently withdrawn money as loan from the GPF accounts of two other employees namely Ganga Popli and Maya Devi. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent did not accept the chargesheet when it was sought to be served upon him, and therefore, notice thereof was published in the newspapers 'The Statesman' (English) and 'Qaumi Awaz' (Urdu) on 15th September, 2006 and 'Punjab Kesari' (Hindi) on 16.9.2006. It resulted in the punishment order dated 26th February, 2007 whereby the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of 66% cut for life time from the pension of the Respondent.

(2.) O.A. No. 551/2010 preferred by the Respondent has been allowed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 17th September, 2010 holding that the service of chargesheet in 2005, i.e., after the retirement of the Respondent, relating to an event which took place much earlier than four years, was time barred. For this purpose the learned Tribunal has referred to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) in this behalf stipulates limitation period of four years. This Rule mandates that the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Govt. servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.

(3.) Admittedly, the incident/event for which the Respondent was charged relates to the year 1995 and the chargesheet dated 15th July, 2005 (served on 18th July, 2005), therefore, related to an event which occurred more than 10 years before issuance/service of chargesheet. Further, this chargesheet was also served after the retirement, therefore, on the application of the aforesaid provisions contained in Rule 9, the chargesheet was clearly time barred.