1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.466/2002. : : Sugan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Govind Choudhary for Mr. Rajveer Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the charge-sheet dated 7.11.2001. This Court while issuing notice of the writ petition stayed further proceedings by order dated 25.7.2002. 3. Shri Govind Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of provisions contained in Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet after the date of retirement. Petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2000 2 whereas charge-sheet was issued to him on 7.11.2001, which is after one year and 10 months. Learned counsel submitted that respondents did not even seek prior sanction of His Excellency the Governor of the State. Retiral benefits of petitioner have been illegally withheld. It is therefore prayed that respondents be directed to pay all his retiral dues. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that since the petitioner was already suspended on 6.7.1999, disciplinary proceedings in his case in terms of Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 would be deemed to have been initiated from the date of his suspension, even if charge-sheet was served subsequent to date of his retirement. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material on record. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it would be apposite to reproduce sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, which is as under :- 3 “7. Right of Governor 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: (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment - (i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor, (ii)shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service.” 4 Sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 further provides that : “(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.” Sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Rules, which is relevant for deciding the controversy in the present case categorically provides in its clause (a) that : “(6) For the purpose of this rule - (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date” It would be thus seen that there are two parts of Clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the rules. Normally, 5 the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date of charge-sheet when statement of allegations are issued to the Government servant or from the date when the Government servant has been placed under suspension. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner had already been suspended on 6.7.1999 in relation to allegation, which he was issued charge-sheet on 7.11.2001. The contention that disciplinary proceedings in the meaning of Rule 7 (supra) have not been initiated during the time when the petitioner was in service, no charge-sheet can be issued to him after the date of retirement cannot be accepted. The intention of rule making authority is clear from clause (a) of sub-rule (6) of Rule (supra) that if Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date earlier than the date of retirement, the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on such date and, therefore, such proceedings initiated pursuant to charge-sheet dated 7.11.2001 would be for the purpose of notification of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 7 (supra). I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-