G.R. SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Memorandum No. F. No. 5 -8/2007 -KVS (Vig.) dated 21.5.2008, the Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan proposed to hold an enquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in respect of the imputation of misconduct set out in the statement of article of charge enclosed as Annexure -I and II therewith. A list of document by which and a list of witnesses by whom article of charges were proposed to be sustained were enclosed as Annexure -III and IV to said memorandum. Annexure -I to the aforementioned Memo contained as many as 11 article of charge. However, the Inquiry Authority found the charges contained only in Article III and IX as partly proved and the other charges were held as not proved. For easy reference, the charges held as partly proved are extracted hereinbelow:

(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the plea of arriving at the amount directed to be recovered from the pension of the applicant is concerned, as can be seen from the minutes recorded in the meeting of the Purchase Committee held on 7.3.2003 of which the applicant was also a signatory and member (Page 122 to 123 of the paper book), apparently the rates higher than market rate were accepted for supply of the required material including all the service and contingency charges. Relevant excerpts of the said minute read as under: -

(3.) IT is the contention of the applicant that the disciplinary proceedings in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before the institution of the same should not be continued after retirement of the concerned employee. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order of this Tribunal in Smt. Santosh Verma v. The Commissioner KVS and Ors., OA No. 2469/2003. In the said case, the applicant had questioned the initiation of disciplinary proceeding deemed continued after her retirement. It is not so, herein as the applicant has not questioned the continuance of disciplinary proceeding, but the order of recovery from pension. The two situations are entirely different. A delinquent can always question the disciplinary proceeding initiated after a long delay or unduly protracted on the ground that such delays in initiation or conclusion of the proceeding prejudice his defence. When the charge sheet is questioned at the outset of disciplinary action on the ground that the same is in respect of a very old event and the Charged Officer cannot be expected even to remember the incident properly to defend him certainly the plea of prejudice raised before the Tribunal deserve to be examined and decided. But in the case like present one where the enquiry is concluded and the order of penalty is issued, in order to attack the penalty order on the plea of delay, one need to establish the prejudice caused to him. The applicant has not taken any plea of prejudice caused to his defence on account of delay in initiation or conclusion of disciplinary action against him. The ratio decendi of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India,, 1981 (3) SLR 778, is that the power to continue or start a disciplinary proceedings after retirement may be necessary in certain cases but the power to do so must be exercised within a reasonable period and consistent with justice and public interest. In the said case also the enquiry was not concluded even after 20 years. Paras 1 and 16 of the order in the case of Smt. Santosh Verma v. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. read as under: -