Retired EGG, Wow. 2k/h2 civil Line. migw(c.s.). Versus. Rondnt - 1) state Govtm: c.c.. Through - The Secra'hary Revenue Deptt. B,K.s. f mumm (c.G.). m) whe conector. mm (cc). 3,)«shrt K.'K.Agmm1,v -COllectér, mm (w), / Writ petition under Articla 226/227 92 the co’nsti'gutigi (f: 0f mag. a \i 1 %’f2 / espe u w < 0.53” HIGHN COURT OF CHHATTISGARH KILASPUR WRITM PETITION NO. 1 123 of2002 GAINDIAL KANNOJE VERsUS STATE GOVT. OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS ORDER Post for g .08.2005 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha ; Judge r \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 1 123 of 2002 GAINDLAL KANNOJE VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocatt General for the State. onnER ( lanes-2005) sUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) A short but important question arises for consideration as to when does a disciplinaxy enquiry is said to have been instituted for the purposes of its continuation under Rule 9 of the M.P. (C.G.) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short Rules) after the superannuation of the employee ? (2) The brief facts are that the petitioner was worldng as an Assistant Grade—II in Disuict O$ce, Durg. He retired on 30.09.2001 on completion of the age'of superannuation. Before the ren'rement, he was under suspension since 24.09.2001 but his suspension was mvoked on 29.09.2001. On 02.01.2002, i.e. after his retirement, he was served with a charge—sheet and 0‘55 an enquiry o$cer was appointed to conduct a disciplinaly enquiry against him. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this enquiry and has prayed for quashing of the same. He has also pmyed for necesswy directions to the respondents» to release his all mtrial benents along with the interest. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had mined on 30.09.2001, no departmental enquiry can be im'u‘ated against him on 02.01.2002 vide annexuxe—P/2 as the petin'oner ceases to be an employee after his superannuan'on on 30.09.2001 and the State had no light to deal with him in its disciplinaxy jurisdiction. He also submits that the departmental enquiry is said to have been insn'tuted on the date when the charge-sheet is served upon the employee and even the pension rules referred to above, does not permit for continuation of a departmental enquiry after the superannuation, when the enquiry itself has heen insh'tuted after the retirement of the employee. (4) On the other hand, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 30.09.2001, he was suspended on 24.09.2001 in contemplation of the enquiry, therefoxe, in fact, the enquiry was instituted on the date of his suspension prior to the date of retirement and the same can be conh'nued under Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules. (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records oii‘the writ petition. (6} Regarding the controversy raised in this writ petition, sub-rule 2 (a) of Rule 9 of the pension rules is important. This sub-rule provides that the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-ernployment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to 0:38 be proceedings under this ruls and shall be cont'nued and ( ‘ concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in his service. A proviso has also been gven to this rule that Where the departmental proceedings are inin'ated by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding his nndings to the Governor. Sub- rule (b) of this rule further provides that the departmental proceedings, if not ins1ituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, then sanction of the Govemor would be necessary. After bare perusal of these two sub-rules of Rule 9 it would be clear that those departmental proceedings can be conh'nued under this rule which are instituted prior to the superannuation of the government servant and if the proceedings are not instituted prior to the superannuation, then they shall not be instituted after the superannuation unless a sanction from Govemor is obtained. (7) If we examine the present caserin light of the above rules, it would appear that it is not the case of the State that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner are being drawn with the sanction of the Governor. Learned Dy. Advocate General has contended that since the proceedings were instituted on 24.09.2001 when the pen'tioner was suspended, therefore, they shall be deemed to be the proceedings under sub-rule 2 (a) of Rule 9 and the State has an authority to continue with the same and to come to a dehnite nnding under the said rule. (8) Whether the suspension of the petitioner on 24.09.2001 shall amount to msntuuon of a departrnental proceeding against him and the proceedings shall he allowed to continue aiter the superannuation of the petitioner is the question raised. a 'v l\ B4” (9) Sub-rule 6 of Rule 9 is quoted as under:- “(6) For the pumose 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 Goverrmwnt servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an ember date, on such date; and (b) judia’al proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police @‘icer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) In the case of civil proceedings, an the date the plaint is presented in the ' court.” (10) Sub-rule 6 (a), as indicated above, provides that in normal course for the purposes of rule 9, the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant ‘bnt if the Government servant is placed under suspension mm an earlier date, then it shall be deemed to be instituted on such date. The word on such date means the date on which the Government servant was placed under suspension. Therefore, in the present case, the date of institution of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner for the purposes of rule 9 shall be deemed to be the date on which the petitioner was placed under suspension i.e. on 24.09.2001. (1 1) Hence, the anSWer to the quesn'on raised is that the disciplinary enquiry is deemed to have been instituted for the purposes of its continuation after the superannuation of the employee under rule 9 of the rules, on the date of issuance the statement of charges, in the normal course, but if the Government servant is placed under suspension, then on the date of his suspension which in the case of the petitioner is on 24.09.2001. Therefore, his departmental pmceedings can be continued even after his superannuation. (12) In light of the above facts and cimnmstances of the case, since the departmental proceedings of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been instituted on 24.09.2001 i.e. yrior to the date of superannuation, thexefore, these proceedings cannot be quashed and the same shall be allowed to continue as it shall be deemed to the proceedings under rule 9 (2) (a) of the aforesaid Rules, 1976. (13) The other argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision rendered in the matter of C.L. Verna —Vs- state of M.P.. A.I.R. 1990 so, 4-63 that the petitioner was retired on 30.09.2001, therefore, no departmental proceedings can be insu'tuted against him by issuing a charge-sheet on 02.01.2002, cannot be sustained because the ratio of this decision is not applicable in the present case. In the said case, the Chief Municipal O$cer Was superannuated and thereafter, he was subjected to departmental proceedings on a set of charges and in the said situation, the Apex Court has held that when the petitioner was already superannuated, the Government had no right to deal with him in its disciplinary jurisdiction available in regard to employees. The aforesaid decision is distinguishable, because in the present case, the enquiry was already instituted prior to the superannuation. This argument cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. (14) On the basis of foregoing discussions, I do not hnd any merit in the Writ petition and the same is.dismissed. No costs. _ i/D Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti