The Madras High Court has held that departmental proceedings against retired government employees cannot be initiated for incidents that occurred more than four years before the issuance of the charge memo. The Court ruled that such delayed proceedings are barred by limitation under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which governs disciplinary action and pensionary rights of retired public servants.
The case arose when a retired judicial employee challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him long after his superannuation. The petitioner had retired from service on May 31, 2023, and subsequently received a charge memo dated August 21, 2024. The memo alleged misconduct on his part for having purchased a piece of land during his tenure without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. However, the alleged misconduct pertained to an event that occurred on July 6, 2000—nearly twenty-four years before the charge memo was issued. The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the proceedings were hopelessly time-barred and violated the statutory safeguards available to retired employees.
Examining the facts, the Court observed that Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules authorizes the government to withhold or withdraw pension or gratuity if a pensioner is found guilty of misconduct during service, but it also imposes strict conditions for initiating proceedings after retirement. Under Rule 9(2)(b), no departmental proceeding can be instituted in respect of any event that took place more than four years before the issuance of the charge memo. The rule further clarifies that a proceeding is deemed to be instituted on the date the charge memo is issued, and not on the date of any preliminary inquiry or internal communication.
Applying this principle, the Court found that the alleged misconduct in this case had occurred more than two decades before the issuance of the charge memo. Since the charge memo was issued after the petitioner’s retirement and the event in question was well beyond the four-year period prescribed by law, the departmental action was rendered invalid. The Court categorically held that preliminary fact-finding inquiries conducted before the employee’s retirement do not amount to formal institution of departmental proceedings and therefore cannot extend the limitation period.
The Bench observed that pension is not a matter of discretion but a statutory right that accrues upon retirement, subject only to lawful deductions or penalties under the pension rules. Consequently, any action that seeks to deprive a retired employee of pensionary benefits must conform strictly to the procedural and temporal requirements under the law. The Court also emphasized that disciplinary proceedings serve the purpose of maintaining administrative discipline and integrity, but they must be initiated promptly and within the legally prescribed timeframe to prevent harassment of retired employees.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the charge memo and directed the authorities to process and release the petitioner’s pensionary and retirement benefits without further delay. The judgment underscores that government departments must adhere to the statutory limitation period when seeking to initiate disciplinary proceedings against retirees, ensuring fairness and finality in employment matters. The ruling thus reinforces the protection available to retired employees against belated or arbitrary departmental actions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.