Holding

A departmental enquiry instituted while the officer was in service may be continued after retirement under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, and delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained.

Summary

Abdul Rasool Chowdhury, a caretaker in the Forest Department, was charged in 1987 with gross financial irregularities and was suspended pending a departmental enquiry. The enquiry was not completed before his superannuation on 31 March 1995. He approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal seeking dismissal of the proceedings and restoration of his benefits; the Tribunal ordered the enquiry to be completed within six months. The High Court set aside that order, holding that Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 could not be invoked after retirement and that the delay was fatal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a departmental enquiry initiated while the employee was in service may continue after retirement under Rule 10(1), and that a delay is not fatal if satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the disciplinary authority was directed to complete the enquiry within three months.

Issues considered

Whether the employer can continue a departmental enquiry initiated before the employee's retirement under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death‑cum‑Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.
Whether a delay in concluding the departmental enquiry defeats the proceedings.

Legislation cited

West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971s. Rule 10(1)

Subjects

departmental enquiryretirementpension withholdingWest Bengal Service Rulesdelay in disciplinary proceedingsnatural justice

Judgment

(
A [2009] 9 S.C.R. 695
""
Iii THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT & ORS. A
~
~ v.
ABDUL RASUL CHOWDHURY
(Civil Appeal No. 341 O of 2009)

MAY 8, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]
i

---4
Service Law:

West Bengal Services (Death-CUM-Retirement Benefit) c
Rules, 1971:
',

r. 10 (1) - Departmental enquiry - Initiated against
delinquent for gross financial irregularities - Continuation of
enquiry proceedings after retirement of employee - Held:
~·
Departmental enquiry ha· ·ing been initiated during the D
service period, employer can proceed with the same even
after superannuation of employee - Delay in concluding
departmental proceedings, if explained satisfactorily, is not
fatal to the proceedings - On facts, since the employee had
left the Head Quarters without permission, the proceedings E
could not be completed - Disciplinary authority directed to
1'- complete the domestic enquiry expeditiously - Delay.
1
State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Others,
(2006) 7 sec 651, relied on. F
Case Law Reference:
(2006) 1 sec 651 relied on Para 11

- "'
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
341 O of 2009.
G

From the Judgment & Order dated 13.06.2005 of the High
Court at Calcutta in W.P.S.T. No. 1010 of 2003.

695 H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
~

'i Cm'
A Tara Chandra Sharma for the Appellants.
1r'
..
D.N. Ray and Sunita Ray for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

B ORDER

H.l. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted.
~

2. Challenging the judgment and order passed by the High J
Court in W.P.S.T. No. 1010 of 2003 dated 13.6.2005, the
c Secretary., Forest Department and others, have filed this
appeal.

3. The facts in nutshell are, the respondent while he was
working in wild life Division - 11 ·at Jalpaiguri was served with a
D memo dated 10.3.1987, inter alia directing him to show cause,
why disciplinary action should n'lt be taken against him by the
-?'
Divisional Forest Officer for gross financial irregularities in
respect of measurement taken and payment made thereof for
some of the works undertaken by him as Care Taker, Tourist
E Lodge, Jaldapara, as detected during the course of checking
by the Divisional Forest Officers, Wild Life Division - II. Since
the explanation offered by the respondent was not satisfactory, .L
he was kept under suspension, pending departmental enquiry 'r •-I
proceedings by the Divisional Forest Officer, Cooch Bihar >-
Division vide his order dated 13.8.1987. Thereafter, a charge
F
memo dated 13.8.1987 was served on the respondent by the
disciplinary authority. The Articles of charges against
respondent were two, namely:-

(i) The respondent while functioning as Care Taker,
G Tourist Lodge, Jaldapara under Cooch Bihar .r- .....
Division from October 1985 to January 1987,
deliberately neglected his duty in execution of
works entrusted on him as care taker of the said
Tourist Lodge and made excess payments against
H inflated measurements to the contractors for
,. SECRETARY, FOREST DEPT. ORS. v. ABDUR 697 \

RASUL CHOWDHURY [H.L. DATIU, J.]
...,
malafide personal gain, causing financial loss to the A
government to the tune of Rs.1,25,293.34 paisa.

(ii) While functioning as care taker of the tourist lodge,
Jaldapara, the respondent intentionally falsified
government documents and tempered with the B
same with ulterior motive of personal gain.

4 After initiation of departmental proceedings nothing
J-
seems to have been.done by the disciplinary authority.

5. The respondent retired from service on 31st day of c
March, 1995, on attaining the age of superannuation.

- - 6. As the authorities neither completed the departmental
enquiry proceedings, nor released the retirement benefits to the
respondent, he was constrained to ·file original application
D
before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.
5963 of 1999, inter alia, requesting the tribunal to direct the
~
respondents therein to pass an order dropping the disciplinary
proceedings, in view of inordinate delay in completing the
disciplinary enquiry proceedings though it was initiated by
issuing the charge memo dated 13.8.1987; to revoke the order E
of suspension dated 13.8.1987; to direct the respondents to
pass an order declaring that the entire service period of the
applicant from 13.8.1987 to 31.3.1995 as the period spent on
.... '1·
duty and the applicant is entitled to salaries and the other
1
emoluments for the said period; and lastly to pass an order F
computing the retiral benefits, including pensionary benefits.

~.
7. The Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 1st day
of August, 2003, disposed of the original application by
directing the respondents/petitioners. to conclude the G
departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the
"' applicant within a period of six months in accordance with Rule
10(1) of West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits)
Rules, 1971, with a further direction to settle the entire
subsistence allowance payable to the applicant.
H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
)
I,_

A 8. The applicant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order )-"

passed by the Administrative Tribunal, had filed a Writ Petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia,
requesting the court to set aside the orders passed by the
tribunal and to grant reliefs sought for by the applicant in the
B original application.

9. The High Court has allowed the writ petition, inter alia,
holding that during the pendency of departmental enquiry
~
proceedings, the delinquent employee has retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation and there is no
c provision/Rule which would permit the employer from continuing
with the enquiry proceedings. Secondly, Rule 10 of West
Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefits Rules, 1971,
~ -4
cannot be resorted to by the employer, since the said rule has
been declared as ultra-vires by the courts and, lastly, that the
D charge sheet having been issued on 13th August, 1987, the
disciplinary authority had not proceeded with the enquiry till the
delinquent employee ~etired from service on attaining the age
of superannuation and, therefore, the employer now cannot
proceed with the domestic enquiry proceedings.
/

E
10. The State being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of
the High Court, has presented this Special Leave Petition.

11. The learned counsel Shri Tara Chandra Sharma would y
submit Rule 10(1) of West Bengal Services (Death-cum- ~
......
F Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, would permit the employer to
reduce or withhold pension by initiating proceedings against a
government servant even after his retirement from service and
the vires of the said rule has been upheld by this court in the
case of State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and
G Others, (2006) 7 SCC 651. It is further contended that
departme.ntal proceedings though initiated in 1987, the same )

could not be completed before the respon.dent retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation in view of non-
cooperation of the respondent and, if any body has to be
H blamed, it is the respondent and not the employer for the delay
SECRETARY, FOREST DEPT. ORS. v. ABDUR 699
RASUL CHOWDHURY [H.L. DATIU, J.]
~
in completing the proceedings. A

12. The learned counsel Shri D.N. Ray, appearing for the
respondent justifies the judgment of the High Court.

13. Two issues would arise for our consideration and
.. consequent decision. They are :- B

(i) Whether the employer could continue with the
'- departmental enquiry proceedings initiated prior to
the retirement of government servant by virtue of
Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death- c
cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971?

(ii) Whether the delay in completing the domestic
enquiry proceedings would be fatal to the
proceedings?
D
14. To answer the first issue which we have framed for our

' consideration, Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 1971, requires to be
noticed and, therefore, it is extracted :-

"10. Right of the Governor to withhold pension in E
certain cases.-(1) The Governor reserves to himself the
right of withholding of withdrawing a pension or any part
of it whether permanently or for a specified period, and the
... -¥
i
right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole
or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if
F
the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial
proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence, durihg the period of his service, including
service rendered on re-employment after retirement:

Provided that- G
~

(a) such departmental proceeding if instituted while
the officer was in service, whether before his retirement
or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement
of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A article and shall be continued and concluded by the *
authority by which it was commenced in the same manoer •
,t~
as if the officer had continued in service; ,,

(b) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the officer was in service, whether before his
B ~

,,
i
retirement or during his re-employment-

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
Governor; .4

c (ii) shall not b~ in respect of any event whic\ • took
place more than four years before such institution; ~nd )
I
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such
'-'1-
place as the Governor may direct and in accordance with
the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in
D which an order of dismissal from service could be made
in relation to the officer during his service;
?·
(c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while
the officer was in service, whether before his retirement
,_
E or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect
of a cause of action which arose on an event which took
place more than four years before such institution; and
r

(d) the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, shall be ":f
consulted before final orders are passed.
F
Explanation.-For the purpose of this article- •~
I

(a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to
have been instituted on the date on which the statement
G of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the
;
officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier .)_
.t
date, on such date; and

(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to have
been instituted-
H
- SECRETARY, FOREST DEPT. ORS. v. ABDUR
RASUL CHOWDHURY [H.L. DATTU, J.]
701

(i) in the case of criminal proceeding; on the date on A
wh!ch the complaint or report of police officer, on which the
Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and

(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, ori the date on
which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an B
application is made to a civil court."

"- 15. Rule 10 of the rules speaks of the right of the Governor
to withhold pension in certain cases. Sub-Rule 10(1) says that
;; the Governor reserves himself the right of withholding or
withdrawing pension or any part of it whether permanently or c
for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from
pension or the whole or the part of any pecuniary loss caused
to the government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental
or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct
or negligence during the period of service, including service D
rendered on re-employment after retirement. Proviso appended

' to the rules specifically provides that the resort to sub-Rule (1)
to Rule 10 can be made only apart from others, that the
departmental proceedings had been instituted while the officer
in service. This rule came up for interpretation before this court E
in Haresh C. Banerjee's case (supra) and this court after
considering the object, purpose and purport of the rule has
stated :
1
1
"7. Various State rules or regulations vest power of
_, withholding or reduction of pension on compliance with the F
' principles of natural justice. The question of an order
withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in
law on a legally permissible ground is one thing but to hold
the rule ultra vires is another. In State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma2 this Court observed that if the Government incurs G
pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of
a government servant and if he retires from service before
any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is
open -to the State Government to initiate departmental
H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
r
!

-)-

A proceedings, and ·if in those proceedings, he is found guilty
of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or
omission as a result of which the Government is put to }::-
pecuniary loss, the State Government is entitled to
withhold; reduce or recover. the loss suffered by it by :·
B forfeiture or reduction of pension. In State of Punjab v. K.R. ''·
14
Err/ it was held that the State Government could not direcr
cut in pension of officers without giving a reasonable
..)
opportunity of hearing. In State of Maharashtra v. M.H.
Mazumdar4 it was observed that the State Government's \..

c power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings r
against a government servant, even after his retirement is
expressly preserved by the Rules.
i
8. Rule 10(1) is the authority of law under which the . )
,_
pension could be withheld on compliance with stipulations
D . '. of the rule. We are unable to appreciate how such a rule ~
could be held ultra vires even at a point of time when I
pension was a property to which Article 19(1 )(f) was
applicable."

E 16. In the present case, while the delinquent employee was
in service, the departmental enquiry proceedings had been
instituted by the employer by issuing the charge memo and the
proceedings could not be completed before the government
~
servant retired from service on attaining the age of
F superannuation and in view of Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 1971,
the employer can proceed with the departmental enquiry
proceedings though the government servant has retired from
service for imposing only punishment contemplated under the '

Rules.
..!
G 17. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding ,.L
disciplinary proceedings. In our view that the delay in
concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the \
proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The un-explained protracted delay on the part of the
H ~·

r
'
)-
SECRETARY, FOREST DEPT. ORS. v. ABDUR 703
RASUL CHOWDHURY [H.L. DATIU, J.]
"' employer may be one of the circumstance in not permitting the A
employer to contir.ue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings.
At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then
the proceedings should be permitted to continue. This court in
the case of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies vs.
Sachindra Nath Pandey, (1995) 3 SCC 134, has explained B
the various circumstances when the departmental proceedings
can be directed to be closed, it is worthwhile to refer to the
observation made by this court in this regard :-

"5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
in this case the first respondent adopted a course of total
c
non-cooperation and procrastination and that in spite of
repeated opportunities being given he did not respond or
participate in the inqµiry. The first respondent did not even
care to file an explanation or reply to the memo of charges.
In· the circumstances, the authorities had no option but to D
... hold that the charges are proved. Even after the report of
' the Inquiry Officer was submitted, a number of opportunities
were given which he again failed to avail of. It is submitted
that though the whole history of the case has been set out
in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court, the learned E
Judge did not notice any of those facts and yet allowed
the writ petition on an untenable ground. It is further
1 contended that according to Regulation 68 of the
1 Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations,
1976, it was not obligatory upon the Inquiry Officer to F
record the evidence of the witnesses where the first
respondent did neither submit a reply nor an explanation
to the memo of charges. Though he was apprised of the
inquiry, he did not care to attend in spite of repeated
opportunities. In such a situation, he cannot complain of G
not recording the evidence of witnesses and other
evidence."

18. In the present case the Administrative Tribunal after
going through the entire record from the date of initiation of the
H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A departmental proceedings till the government employee retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation, has
observed that since the government e,mployee had left the head
quarters without permission of the competent authority, so the
proceedings could not be completed. This finding on facts need
B not be disturbed by us, since the said finding cannot be said a
perverse finding.

19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed .l
and the judgment and the order passed by the High Court is
. C ~et aside. The disciplinary authority is directed to complete the
domestic enquiry proceedings from the stage it was interdicted
by the High Court and complete the same as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within three months from the date of
receipt of this court's order. The respondent herein is directed
to participate in the enquiry wi.thout unnecessarily seeking
D adjournment in the enquiry proceedings. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their 1-
own costs. Ordered accordingly.

R.P. Appeal allowed.