Himachal Pradesh High Court
Manohar Lal vs Hrtc & Ors on 16 May, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2025:HHC:14271 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 7348/2023
Decided on: 16.05.2025
Manohar Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Ors. ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
For failure of respondents in concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016, retiral benefits were not released in his favour. In spite of undertaking before this Court to expeditiously complete the departmental proceedings, the respondents thereafter issued a new/revised memorandum charges to the petitioner six years after his superannuation. Petitioner feels aggrieved against respondents issuing fresh charge memo to him and continuing to withhold his retiral benefits. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:14271 )
2. Background Petitioner was deployed in the Accounts Section of the respondent-Corporation as Junior Auditor. The audit of the store managed by him was conducted for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The audit team detected embezzlement of store items and reported that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duty as he did not check the purchase day book to ascertain the quantity and quality of the items received in the store. FIR No.145 dated 21.05.2015 was registered against the petitioner and some other persons at Police Station Sadar Una under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2(ii) During investigation of the FIR, petitioner remained in police custody w.e.f. 22.06.2015 to 11.07.2015. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Memorandum of charges was issued to him on 30.06.2016. Following charges were levelled against him:-
"1. Alleged to have detention in Police/Judicial custody on 24.06.2015 for a period exceeding forty eight hours.
2. Alleged violation of Rule-3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
2(iii) During ongoing inquiry proceedings, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017. He was not released retiral benefits on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Faced with this, petitioner 3 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) instituted O.A. No. 1293/2018 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal. The said case was disposed of on 28.03.2018 with direction to the respondents-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for release of his retiral benefits on the basis of decision rendered in Nek Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 2 The respondents did not release the retiral benefits to the petitioner. This led the petitioner to institute Execution Petition No. 221/2021 in this Court. The said petition was disposed of on 30.09.2021 with direction to the respondents to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal. The matter was ordered to be listed on 18.11.2021 for overseeing the compliance. On the next date i.e. 18.11.2021, the respondents informed the Court that departmental proceedings as well as criminal case were pending against the petitioner. On 24.11.2021, the respondents were directed to conclude the departmental inquiry as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31.03.2022. Thereafter on 27.07.2021, the Court noticed that departmental inquiry in terms of the previous order had not been concluded. Respondents were directed to do the needful within two weeks. This period was further extended by another three weeks on 17.08.2023. The last order passed in the execution petition was on 18.09.2023, when the respondents informed the Court that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner would be completed in 2 CWP No.3050/2014 decided on 17.07.2014 4 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) near future and, consequential steps would be taken after completing the departmental inquiry. Taking note of respondents' assurance, the Execution Petition was disposed of as under:-
"This Execution Petition was filed for implementation of order dated 28.3.2018, passed by erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No.1293/2018 titled Manohar Lal & ors. vs. Himachal Pradesh Transport and another, and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.9.2021, directed the respondents to ensure compliance within a period of six weeks.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner is likely to be completed in near future and, therefore, necessary steps shall be taken after completing the Departmental Inquiry.
In view of above, present Execution Petition is closed and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure complete compliance of the order passed by the Court in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance, if any."
2(iv) Instead of completing the departmental inquiry pursuant to the Memorandum of Charges issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2016, respondents after closure of the execution petition, came up with a revised Memorandum of Charges on 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-7), now levelling following three charges:-
"1. Alleged detention in Police custody on 24.06.2015 for a period exceeding forty eight hours.
2. Alleged violation of Rule-3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. Alleged dereliction in performance of his assigned duty."5
( 2025:HHC:14271 ) The additional charge levelled against the petitioner in the revised Memorandum, was as under:-
"That the said Shri Manohar Lal, Junior Auditor (Now retired) while on the roll of Una unit during the 2010 to 2015 and was deployed in the Accounts Section in the capacity of Junior Auditor. The Audit of store for the period for 2013-14 to 2014-15 was conducted by Shri Vishal Sharma, Assistant Controller (F&A) and Shri Ramesh Chand, Assistant Manager (store), under the Divisional Manager, HRTC Hamirpur who detected the embezzlement of store items namely Tyres, Tubes, Flaps, Batteries 12 volts 19 plates, Lubricants etc. which were supplied by the Regional Manager, HRTC Hamirpur to Una unit through various packing slips during the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2015. During the inspection by the Audit party it was revealed that the said Shri Manohar Lal, Junior Auditor (Now retired) failed to check the purchase day book to ascertain the quantity and quality of the items received from Hamirpur or elsewhere. Being a responsible employee of the corporation, it was the duty of the said Shri Manohar Lal, Junior Auditor (now retired) to exercise strict control on the Receipt of tyres, tubes, flaps and Lubricants etc. but he failed to do so thereby the scam of these items was happened in Una unit. In this way, the said Shri Manohar Lal, Junior Auditor (now retired) was remained aloof in discharging his duties diligently and sincerely. Hence the additional charged for the dereliction in the performance of assigned his duty is also leveled against Shri Manohar Lal, Junior Auditor (Now retired), H.R.T.C. Nalagarh."
2(v) Petitioner feels aggrieved against issuance of revised Memorandum of Charges, he has, therefore, preferred this writ petition, seeking following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That the impugned charge-sheet memorandum dated 15.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No. 1 may 6 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) kindly be quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal, constitutionally void, discriminatory, cryptic and volatile of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403 and also in case of Mahavir Prasad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1970 SC 302) and Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of Chapter 9 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP 7527/2022, by issuing writ of Certiorari.
ii. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to drop the charges in respect of the petitioners with all consequential benefits and justice be done. iii. That respondents may kindly be directed to release the all retirement benefits of the petitioner with up to date interest which has been wrongly withheld by the respondents from last six years."
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered and case file.
4. Consideration 4(i) Present is a case where a person, who retired on 30.04.2017 is still awaiting the release of his retiral benefits for the sole reason that the respondents have not been able to conclude the departmental proceedings initiated against him. As has already been noticed above, Memorandum of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2016. Since the Memorandum had been issued prior to petitioner's superannuation on 30.04.2017, the respondents in 7 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) accordance with provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 could have continued with the disciplinary proceedings even after his retirement. The respondents were duty bound to ensure expeditious finalization of departmental proceedings. More so, when this Court in several orders passed in succession in Execution Petition No. 221/2021 had impressed upon the respondents to conclude the departmental inquiry as expeditiously as possible. In fact, on 18.09.2023, the execution petition was closed in view of the statement made for the respondents that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner was going to be completed in near future and necessary steps in that regard would be taken. The factum of respondents' having issued a revised Memorandum of Charges to the petitioner on 15.09.2023 was not disclosed to the Executing Court on 18.09.2023. Despite having committed before the Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, the same were not concluded and instead a revised Memorandum of Charges was issued to the petitioner.
4(ii) The revised Memorandum of Charges dated 15.09.2023 in essence is an all together new charge-sheet issued to the petitioner subsequent to his retirement on 30.04.2017. It is well settled that after superannuation of a Government employee, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against him, save & except in accordance with Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) 8 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) Rules 1972. This rule provides that disciplinary proceedings cannot be instituted against Government servant not in service except with previous sanction of the competent authority and shall not be in respect of any event, which took place more than four years before such institution. The rules reads as under:-
"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement :
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of (Rupees three thousand five hundred) per mensem.
(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 9 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President.
(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 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....................."
Brajendra Singh Yambem Vs. Union of India & Anr.3 is a significant decision regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against retired government officials. The central issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether disciplinary proceedings, initiated more than four years after the alleged incidents, could be lawfully continued against a retired official under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Supreme Court examined the procedural requirements and statutory limitations for such post-retirement proceedings, ultimately emphasizing that disciplinary action must be initiated within the prescribed limitation period unless exceptional circumstances justify a delay. The judgment clarified that strict adherence to procedural 3 (2016)9 SCC 20 10 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) safeguards is necessary to ensure fairness and prevent undue harassment of retired employees. Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, reinforcing the importance of limitation period in post-retirement disciplinary actions." Relevant paras are extracted hereinafter:-
"31. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. The following essential questions would arise for our consideration in the case:
31.1.(i) Whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court correctly appreciates the scope of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in light of the fact the disciplinary proceedings were initiated more than four years after the alleged incidents?
31.2.(ii)-36 ............................
37. The appellant challenged the correctness of the sanction and charges framed against him before the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 264 of 2010. The High Court quashed the Memorandum of Charges on the ground that it was issued after four years from the date of the alleged incident.
Therefore, it was held that the said action of the Disciplinary Authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings is not valid in law as the same was barred by limitation as per the provision of Rule 9(2)
(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. This important legal aspect of the case was not considered by the Division Bench of the High Court while setting aside the common judgment and order dated 01.09.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 904 of 2008 (arms and ammunitions case) and Writ Petition No. 264 of 2010 (contraband ganja case).
38. .................The aforesaid important aspect of the case should have been considered by the Division Bench of the High Court instead of mechanically accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the case of the appellant 11 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) squarely falls under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) read with Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment are erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside.
39. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the period of limitation of four years as stipulated in 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not apply to the facts of the present case for the reason that the departmental proceedings against the appellant had already been initiated while he was in service, and it was because of the pendency of the litigation before the High Court that the proceedings could not be concluded and further disciplinary proceedings were continued after obtaining prior sanction of the President of India as required under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said contention is untenable both on facts as well as in law.
40. The Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate the fact that liberty had been granted by the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 07.11.2006 in W.A. (C) No. 45 of 2006 to the Disciplinary Authority to take disciplinary action against the appellant. Thus, there was no need for the respondent Disciplinary Authority to withdraw the Memorandum of Charges dated 14.05.1998 for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings afresh against the appellant on the same charges by obtaining an order of sanction from the President of India as required under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment and order dated 05.08.2013 has completely ignored this important legal aspect of the matter, that the prior sanction accorded by the President under the above said Rules was in fact, barred by limitation. Thus, it has committed serious error in law in arriving at the conclusion that the respondent Disciplinary Authority had obtained due sanction from the President of India to conduct the departmental proceedings against the appellant for the same charges, which action was barred by limitation as provided under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of CCS 12 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be allowed to sustain in law.
41. The similar question of law came for consideration before this Court in the case of State of H.P. V. Shri Krishna Pandey 4, wherein it was held as under:
"6. It would thus be seen that proceedings are required to be instituted against a delinquent officer before retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the officer to continue in service nor any order passed to allow him to continue on re-employment till the enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire from service. Equally, there is no provision that the proceedings be initiated as a disciplinary measure and the action initiated earlier would remain unabated after retirement. If Regulation 351- A is to be operative in respect of pending proceedings, by necessary implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue the proceedings against him is required. On the other hand, the Regulation also would indicate that if the officer caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc. due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty, then proceedings should also be instituted after retirement against the officer as expeditiously as possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on 31-3-1987 and the proceedings were initiated on 21-4-1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place prior to four years from the date of his retirement.4
(1996) 9 SCC 395 13 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) Under these circumstances, the State had disabled itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the respondent and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of Regulation 351-A of the Regulations. This order does not preclude proceeding with the investigation into the offence and taking action thereon."
42. .........................
43. The order of sanction to be granted by the President of India as provided under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, which cannot be treated as an executive action of the Government of India. Rather, it is a statutory exercise of power by the President, under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said Rules are framed by the President of India in exercise of legislative power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
44-49 .............................
50. The observation made by this Court in the case of State of M.P. V. Yashwant Trimbak5 to the extent that orders of sanction granted by the Governor are outside the scope of judicial review, is untenable in law. The same is contrary not only to the law laid down by this Court referred to supra, but also the provisions of Articles 77(2) & 166(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the same has no application to the fact situation for the reason that the President has exercised his statutory power for grant of sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to initiate the disciplinary action but not the executive action against the appellant.
51. In the instant case, the action of the Disciplinary Authority is untenable in law for the reason that the interpretation of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which is sought to be made by the 5 (1996) 2 SCC 305 14 ( 2025:HHC:14271 ) learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondents amounts to deprivation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the appellant under Part III of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we have to hold that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority after obtaining sanction from the President of India under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are liable to be quashed."
In the revised memorandum of charges issued to the petitioner on 15.09.2023, respondents have incorporated an all together new Article of charge. It is an all together new charge-sheet issued to the petitioner 6 years after his retirement and almost 10 years after the occurrence of the alleged event and in relation to that very event. It appears that respondents have some wrong notion about their discretion to keep issuing memo of charges regarding of the time lapse and without any regard to petitioner's suffering for over 10 years now. Not only the new Memorandum of Charges has been issued by the respondents contrary to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules but the same is also in breach of respondents' commitment to the Executing Court as recorded in order dated 18.9.2023 passed in Execution Petition No. 221/2021. Due to unwarranted, apathetic attitude and sheer insensitivity of the respondent-employer, the petitioner, even after 8 years of his superannuation is awaiting the culmination of disciplinary proceedings and for that reason has been denied his due terminal benefits.
15
( 2025:HHC:14271 )
5. In view of the facts of the case, coupled with the legal position, revised Memorandum of Charges dated 15.09.2023 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to take final call on disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of Memorandum of Charges issued to him on 30.06.2016 within four weeks from today. All consequences shall follow. Failure to culminate the disciplinary proceedings within the above time limit, shall result in petitioner becoming entitled to receive his terminal benefits due to him in law.
The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 16th May, 2025(rohit)