The Calcutta High Court has held that departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated before an employee’s retirement may validly continue under Rule 9(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and that punishment may be imposed even after superannuation in cases involving grave misconduct or negligence, regardless of whether a pecuniary loss has been established. In this case, the respondent was a Railway Protection Force Inspector who had been placed under suspension and charged with serious misconduct while still in service. The disciplinary proceedings progressed, and ultimately, even after his retirement, a penalty was imposed—specifically, withholding 20 % of his monthly pension for three years. The respondent challenged the punishment, which had been imposed post-retirement.
The Court noted that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, Rule 9(2) expressly provides that any departmental proceedings instituted while in service shall be treated as if the employee continued in service for the purpose of completing the inquiry. This statutory provision renders irrelevant the fact of retirement, for the purpose of adjudicating misconduct charges initiated earlier. The Court observed that the employer-employee relationship is deemed not to terminate vis-à-vis the subject matter of the inquiry, and hence the proceedings may validly be concluded and punishment imposed even post-retirement. The Court held that the Single Judge’s decision setting aside the penalty was erroneous, particularly in viewing delay or non-filing of leave application as fatal, and in holding that charges under RPF Rules could not culminate under pension rules.
The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that punishment under the pension rules could only be imposed if a pecuniary loss to the state were proved. In support, the bench relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of West Bengal v. Pronab Chakraborty, which held that departmental action may continue and punishments may be imposed for grave misconduct or negligence even in the absence of pecuniary loss. The Court found that the charges in the present matter included allegations of negligence and connivance in the sale of fake tickets, which plausibly had financial implications for the railway department. In any event, the Court held, the absence of a demonstrable financial loss does not bar continuing or concluding disciplinary proceedings instituted before retirement.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed. The Court reinstated the disciplinary order imposing the pensionary penalty on the retired officer, dismissing the challenge brought against it. The judgment reaffirms that Rule 9(2) enables post-retirement adjudication of charges raised during service, and that grave misconduct may be penalized even after superannuation without a strict requirement to prove pecuniary loss.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.