STATE OF M P Vs. PURAN LAL NAHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question of law; Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the government against a government employee after his retirement automatically comes to an end in case the enquiry is not concluded within two years of its inception. The earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.R.L. Ogale, 2006 1 MPLJ 412 has taken a view that if the departmental proceedings initiated by the government are not concluded within two years of its inception, the Governor can not pass any final order for recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the department by the delinquent government employee and this view was taken by the earlier Division Bench in view of Clause (b) of third proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

(2.) Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants has argued that the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.N. Ogale's case is per incuriam to the provisions contained in Clause (c) of the third proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1976). The contention of Shri Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate is that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 lays down a comprehensive scheme for payment of pension to a government employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated either before his retirement or after his retirement and, therefore, according to him in view of the provisions contained in Clause (c) of the third proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, the enquiry instituted against a delinquent retired government employee is not vitiated even if it is not completed within two years. The submission is that in case the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two years of its inception, then consequence for the same is provided in Clause (b) of third proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, according to which the pensioner becomes entitled to release of entire withheld pension if enquiry is not concluded within two years of its inception, however, in view of the provisions contained in Clause (c) of third proviso to sub rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, the enquiry against a delinquent employee can still continue even if it is not concluded within two years of its inception and in case upon conclusion of enquiry, the delinquent retired employee is found guilty of misconduct, then findings of enquiry are to be placed before the Governor for passing of final order relating to pension of the retired employee.

(3.) The Respondent in present case had retired from the services of the Appellants on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31st July 2000. At the time of his retirement, he was holding the post of Executive Engineer. A charge sheet was issued to him on 13th September 2002 levelling certain charges against him. The Appellants being the disciplinary authority of the Respondent vide their order dated 28th September 2006 imposed punishment against the Respondent of stoppage of 20% pension permanently under Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The said order of the Appellants dated 28th September 2006 was challenged by the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 4193/07 (S) and the challenge was accepted by the Writ Court vide impugned judgment dated 21st October 2010 relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.N. Ogale's case .