MOTILAL Vs. THE ZILLA PARISHAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on 31st May, 2013, he stood retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has been already paid pension and pensionary benefits save and except Gratuity of Rs. 3,65,310/ - and commutation amount of Rs. 4,44,802/ -. After waiting for more than six months' period, the petitioner has submitted a representation requesting to release gratuity and commutation amount by referring to the provisions of Rule 27 of The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the Rules of 1982), however, there was no response from Respondent No. 1.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the provisions contained in Rule 27 of The Rules of 1982, and submits that such disciplinary inquiry cannot be initiated in respect of any event, which took place more than four years before such institution of inquiry. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the first time, a copy of the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 11.3.2015 for the alleged irregularities committed during the year 2002 to 2005 and, therefore, it was not permissible for the respondents to initiate the disciplinary proceedings for the events, which have been taken place prior to more than four years from institution of such proceedings.