NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 19.11.2015, passed in O.A. No. 294/2015 along with M.A. 252/2015.

(2.) We have heard the petitioner in person, Sri Vivek Prasad, GP-18 and Sri Anjani Kumar Sharan, CGC and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself as exhaustive counter affidavit has already been filed by the State Government.

(3.) The petitioner is an I.P.S. officer of the All India Cadre and is governed by the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short 1969 Rules). While posted as Director General, Homeguard and Fire Services, an F.I.R. was lodged against him on 06.02.2007 in relation to alleged disproportionate assets. On 09.02.2007 the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 3(3) of the 1969 Rules, in view of the First Information Report as instituted, suspended him. His suspension having continued for over 90 days, petitioner appealed to the Central Government questioning the suspension. The Central Government by its order dated 29.06.2007 held that as no departmental proceeding was initiated and no charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner within 90 days of his suspension, the suspension stood revoked. This date of revocation was subsequently changed but the fact remains that the suspension was revoked prior to petitioner 's superannuation which was on 30.06.2007. He was admittedly not under suspension then. Subsequently, in 2011, the State Government approached the Central Government for grant of sanction to initiate departmental proceedings in terms of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (for short 1958 Rules), in particular Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) and the Central Government considered the whole aspect of the matter and refused to sanction disciplinary proceedings clearly holding that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to the period 2004 to 2006 and the petitioner had superannuated on 30.06.2007, the proposal to initiate departmental proceedings was received from the State Government on 07.02.2011, hence, this was in relation to an incident which was far in excess of the period of four years as provided in the said Rules. Sanction was, thus, refused. When petitioner thereafter sought payment of his full retiral dues, the State Government opposed it on the ground that departmental proceedings were pending. The stand of the State apparently was that the moment he had been put under suspension, it would be deemed that the departmental proceedings had been initiated. Being aggrieved by this, petitioner ultimately moved the Tribunal. Tribunal accepted the contention of the State that as the petitioner had been put under suspension while in service it would be deemed that he was under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceedings and as such seeking sanction from the Central Government was under a wrong impression. It was not required, as the departmental proceeding would be deemed to have been commenced prior to his superannuation itself. The correctness of this decision of the Tribunal is under challenge before us.