RPS PANWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein had joined the Department of Telecommunications (for short, "dot") as Engineering Supervisor on 19. 1. 1968 and got promotions from time to time. By the year 1999, he had risen to the rank of ITS Group-A (SAG level) as GM (Telephones) and was posted at Moradabad. In July 2003, he was transferred as GM (Telephones) to Muzaffarnagar, where on 18. 9. 2003 he was arrested by the CBI. It was on the basis of FIR registered by the CBI on 12. 9. 2003 on the allegation of disproportionate assets and his failure to intimate the same to the authorities. Since his detention exceeding 48 hours, order was passed on 23. 9. 2003 under Rule 10 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 placing him under deemed suspension with effect from 18. 9. 2003, i. e. the date of his arrest. Though the petitioner was granted bail after a period of two months, i. e. on 18. 11. 2003, his suspension continued as it was extended from time to time.

(2.) THE petitioner was also served with the charge sheet dated 25. 10. 2004 under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. This was followed by another charge sheet dated 13. 12. 2004 under Rule 16 for minor penalty proceedings in which, after eliciting his reply, displeasure was conveyed. However, insofar as suspension of the petitioner is concerned, his employer kept on extending the same from time to time. Lastly on 15. 2. 2006, the suspension was extended by 180 days, though the petitioner was attaining the age of superannuation on 30. 4. 2006. This was followed by letter dated 13. 4. 2006 stating that the petitioner would continue under suspension even after his retirement. Notwithstanding this, by another order dated 28. 4. 2006 he was permitted to retire on 30. 4. 2006. The said Office memorandum dated 28. 4. 2006 reads as under :-" OFFICE MEMORANDUM subject:- Retirement of Officers of DOT/bsnl/mtnl during April, 2006. On attaining the age of superannuation, Shri R. P. S. Panwar (Staff No. 690), an officer of SAG of ITS Group "a", presently working as General Manager, bsnl, U. P. (West) Telecom Circle is permitted to retire from Government service with effect from 30. 04. 2006 (A/n ). 2. Since, Shri R. P. S. Panwar (Staff No. 690), GM, is under suspension and his vigilance clearance is withheld, he may be paid provisional pension only as per Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

(3.) CHARGE reports may be furnished to all concerned. (Amarjit Singh)Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. " 3. The provisional pension of the petitioner was accordingly sanctioned, which he started getting with effect from 1. 5. 2006. After the retirement, the petitioner was served with another charge sheet dated 5. 10. 2006 alleging various irregularities committed by him during the period 19. 4. 1999 to 16. 6. 2003 while providing and extending the tenure of security guards, which according to the disciplinary authority amounted to misconduct. This was followed by yet another charge sheet dated 15. 3. 2007 levelling as many as 7 articles of charges. These also relate to the period 2000-03 when the petitioner was posted and functioning as GM (Telephones), Moradabad. Vide his representation dated 6. 6. 2007, the petitioner challenged the issuance of charge sheets dated 5. 10. 2006 and 15. 3. 2007 and initiation of disciplinary proceedings pursuant thereto, served upon him after 30. 4. 2006, i. e. after his retirement. However, vide communication dated 30. 7. 2007, his representation was turned down. After receiving the aforesaid rejection, the petitioner preferred OA No. 1658/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was filed in September 2007, challenging the issuance of the aforesaid two charge sheets on the ground that after his retirement no such disciplinary action could be taken. We may note that after the filing of the said OA, two more charge sheets were issued to him on 25. 10. 2007 and 30. 10. 2007, which were, naturally, not the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal as when the OA was filed challenging earlier two charge sheets, these charge sheets were not served. We may also point out that the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were not only in violation of Rules, but were also illegal on the ground of mala fides and arbitrariness and further that they were not sustainable as they relate to events which took place more than four years before such institution. The tribunal has dismissed the OA of the petitioner vide its order dated 31. 3. 2008 holding that such an action could be taken against the petitioner even after his retirement. Challenging this judgment of the Tribunal the instant petition is preferred.