Dalu Ram Meena vs Central Excise & Customs on 13 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The applicant, who was working as Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur, was due to superannuate on 30.04.2017. However, since 29.04.2017 and 30.04.2017 were Saturday and Sunday, respectively, the applicant was relieved on 28.04.2017 (Friday). The respondents issued a charge-sheet on 28.04.2017, which

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

2 OA No.415/2017

was delivered at the residence of the applicant on 01.05.2017 (Monday). The applicant has challenged the same, alleging that although the charge memo bears the date as 28.04.2017, but it was actually prepared only on 29.04.2017. He has also stated that the charges pertain to the period 2013-2014, whereas, he had narrated the details of the incident in his APAR while writing his self-appraisal, and thereafter, the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities had graded him as ‘outstanding’.

2. The main ground taken by the applicant is that since the charge memo was received by him only on 01.05.2017, and he had already retired on 28.04.2017, the said charge memo is liable to be set aside because the same had been issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’]. The applicant contends that an enquiry under the said provision can be conducted only against a Government servant, whereas, on 01.05.2017 when the charge memorandum was received by him, he was no longer a Government servant and, after retirement, a memorandum could only be issued under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [for short ‘CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972’].

3. The respondents, in their reply, have stated that Sub Rule (6) of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that departmental proceedings will be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant. In the instant case, the

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

3 OA No.415/2017

charge-sheet was issued on 28.04.2017 when the applicant was in service, therefore, there was no requirement of sanction of the President of India for initiation of the proceedings. Further, Rule 9(2)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 provides that such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the Government Servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service, provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by the authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.

4. In terms of the above provision, after the retirement of the officer, as the proceedings are deemed to be proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, there is no requirement for issue of a formal order by the President for continuation of the proceedings initiated by the Original Disciplinary Authority under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, the proceedings are to be continued and concluded in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service, by the authority who commenced the proceedings.

5. Heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, documents and materials placed on record.

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

4 OA No.415/2017

6. Since the applicant has approached this Tribunal at the stage of charge-sheet, the scope of interference is very limited. At this stage, we cannot go into the merits of the charges and shall confine ourselves only to considering the validity of the charge-sheet on the question as to whether the charge memorandum could have been issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or could have been issued only under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, since the charge memorandum was actually received by the applicant on 01.05.2017, whereas, the date of his superannuation was 30.04.2017 i.e. one day prior, since 29.04.2017 and 30.04.2017 were Saturday and Sunday, respectively, he was relieved from service on Friday i.e. 28.04.2017.

7. We will, therefore, peruse Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under which the charge memorandum was issued, as well as also Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which the applicant claims to be applicable to him. We shall first examine the relevant provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which the charge memorandum was issued, which are reproduced hereunder: “14. Procedure for imposing major penalties …..

(4) (a). The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charges is proposed to be sustained.”

The relevant provisions of Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which the applicant claims to be

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

5 OA No.415/2017

applicable in the present case, are reproduced hereunder: “9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.— …….

(2) (a). The departmental proceedings referred to in sub- rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.”

8. The whole argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is based upon Rule 14(4)(a), which starts with the words, “the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the article of charge….”. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that “the date / time of delivery is of essence” and that it is only when the charge memorandum is delivered to the Government servants that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 become applicable. Since the charge memorandum was delivered to the applicant on 01.05.2017, and the applicant had superannuated one day prior i.e. on 30.04.2017 and relieved on 28.04.2017, he was not a Government servant at the time of receiving the charge memorandum.

9. To our mind, Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is meant to lay down the procedure to be followed in disciplinary

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

6 OA No.415/2017

proceedings and is not intended to stipulate or define the date or time from which the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 become applicable.

10. The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 needs to be read in tandem with Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In fact, Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 rather throws light on the time of institution of the disciplinary proceedings. As is evident from the above-reproduced extract, Rule 9(2)(a) emphasizes the institution of the disciplinary proceedings rather than the delivery of the charge memorandum, as it says “if instituted while the Government servant was in service”. Further, Rule 9(6)(a) is specifically reproduced herein-below :- “9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.—

(6) For the purpose of this rule –

(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and”

11. As is evident from the above, Rule 9(6)(a) it, in fact, clarifies what shall be deemed to be “instituted”. It says “departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charge is issued to the Government servants”. In the present case, the statement of charges / charge memorandum was issued on 28.04.2017, while the applicant was still in service and, as such, was a Government servant. What emerges from the aforesaid provision and discussion is that the date of institution of the

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

7 OA No.415/2017

disciplinary proceedings is crucial, and what is deemed to be “instituted” is the statement of charges and what is deemed to be the date of institution is the “issuance” of the statement of charges. In case the same is done while the Government servant was in service, the proceedings shall be deemed to be under Rule 9 and shall continue and be concluded as if the Government servant had continued in service and in the present case, the statement of charges was issued on 28.04.2017 and on that date, the applicant was still in service. As to the allegation of the applicant that though the date mentioned on the charge memo was 28.04.2017 but it was actually prepared on 29.04.2017, is simply on allegation without furthering any evidence to support it, even otherwise also not believable as 29.04.2017 was a holiday being Saturday.

12. We find support for our view in the judgment dated 07.04.1993 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C.Khurana, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 196. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below : “Decision to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent had been taken and charge sheet had also been issued to the respondent prior to Nov. 28, 1990 when the DPC adopted the sealed cover procedure. It cannot be held otherwise merely because service of the charge-sheet framed and issued earlier could be effected on the respondent after November 28, 1990, on account of his absence.

(Para 16) The meaning of the word 'issued' has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be subsequent to the issuance of the charge-sheet, since issue of the charge- sheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate

Phone=

KHUSHBOO MITTAL GUPTA

8 OA No.415/2017

disciplinary proceedings. The service of the charge-sheet on the government servant follows the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not precede or coincide with that decision. The delay, if any, in service of the charge-sheet to the government servant, after it has been framed and despatched, does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as information to the government servant of the charges framed against him, by service of the charge- sheet, is not a part of the decision making process of the authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The contrary view would defeat the object by enabling the government servant, if so inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that decision.

(Paras 15, 9 and 13)”.

13. The allegation of the applicant that, though the date mentioned on the charge memorandum is 28.04.2017, but the same was actually issued on 29.04.2017 is an unfounded assertion, as he has not supported the same at all.

14. Hence, in the light of above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.04.2017. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed being devoid of merits.

15. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.

(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J)

kmg*

Phone=

KHUSHBOO