Union of India & Ors Vs. Ganesh Prasad Sharma [2008] INSC 385 (5
March 2008)
H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU O R D E R (arising out of SLP(C)No.11914 of 2006) Leave granted.
Heard the parties.
The respondent, Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, was working as Senior Accounts
Officer, O/O PGMT, Patna. It is stated that during the period 1999-2000 he
failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and committed gross
misconduct in as much as he acted in a manner prejudicial to his Department. It
is also alleged that he has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government
servant thereby contravening the provisions of Rule (1)(i)& (iii) of
CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 (in short 'Rules'). A memorandum of chargesheet has
been served upon the respondent on 25.2.2003. He retired on 28.2.2003. It
appears that the conduct of the respondent along with one Kaniya Lal was
inquired into by the CBI. The CBI has exonerated both of them, however,
observed that departmental proceedings may be initiated against them.
Kaniya Lal was retired on superannuation on 28.2.2002 and, therefore,
departmental proceedings could not be initiated against him. Under Rule 9(2)(a)
& (b) Swamy's Pension Compilation Incorporating CCS Pension Rules provides
thus:
(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.
(b) The department 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
President, (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 President 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. In the case of Kaniya Lal since he was retired on
superannuation with effect from 28.02.2002 no departmental proceeding was
initiated against him. The Tribunal was of the view that since no departmental
proceeding has been initiated against Kaniya Lal, the departmental proceeding
against Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, respondent herein is also not tenable in law
and set aside the disciplinary proceeding. The writ petition of the appellant
having failed to produce any result this appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
In the case of the respondent herein, Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma, the
memorandum of charges was instituted on 25.2.2003. He retired on 28.2.2003
after the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. This would show that
when the departmental proceedings was initiated against him on 25.2.2003 he was
very much in service and, therefore, both the Tribunal and the High Court fell
in error in quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
respondent herein. The cases of Kaniya Lal and Ganesh Prasad Sharma, respondent
herein are distinctly different.
In the view that we have taken both the orders of the Tribunal and the High
Court are set aside. The department may continue with the disciplinary
proceedings against the respondent herein, Shri Ganesh Prasad Sharma and pass
appropriate order. Since the proceedings are pending from 2003 we direct the
appellant to complete the disciplinary proceedings preferably within six months
from today. We clarify that we do not express any opinion on the merit of this
case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3