Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Kotteesaaran vs M/O Corporate Affairs on 27 February, 2026
1 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00538/2020 & MA/310/00117/2025
Dated this, the 27th day of February Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
S.Kotteeswaran, S/o. D. Santhasgunam Pillai,
Residing at Flat - C, HIG New Flats, TNSCB,
First Floor, Swathanthra Nagar,
Moores Road, Chennai 600006. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. P. Ulaganathan
Vs.
1.Union of India rep by,
The Secretary to the Government,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
'A' Wing, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001.
2.The Regional Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs (SR),
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
No. 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600006.
3.The Registrar of Companies, Karnataka,
II Floor, "E" Wing, Kendriya Sadan,
Koramangala, Bangalore 34. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
2 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
i. Memorandum of Charges issued by Deputy Secretary, under the authority of R1 dated 07.12.2012.
ii. Memorandum No. C-13011/51/2011-Viq issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 06.05.2015. iii. Order No. C-13011/51/2011-Vig issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 14.12.2018 conveying tentative disagreement on the Article 1 of the Articles of Charges that was held not proved by the IA and tentatively agreeing with the other charges held to be proved.
iv. Order No. C-13011/51/2011-Vigilance Issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 22.06.2018. (Τo be read as 22.06.2020) (Date of the order mentioned wrongly, as it was received by the applicant on 30.06.2020 and issued on the retirement of the previous Inquiry Officer on 31.05.2020);
and quash all the above proceedings as illegal and consequentially direct the 1st Respondent to drop all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in this regard and allow all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances, if any, and arrears of pension and allowances, other pensionary benefits that had been withheld due to the pending disciplinary proceedings; and pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows :-
2.1. The applicant, who has retired on superannuation, on 30.11.2013 from the office of 2nd respondent while working as Junior Technical Assistant, was falsely implicated in CBI case on the basis of a complaint filed by a third party on the charge of criminal conspiracy and demanding illegal gratification for facilitating registration of the Complainant's Association. 3 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025
The said case was closed by the learned CBI Court on the basis of a report submitted by the CBI who recorded that there are no sufficient evidence to prove the charge and who recommended for major penalty proceedings against the applicant.
2.2. The 1st respondent issued a Charge Memo dt. 07.12.2012 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965, consisting of three articles of charges, of which the 1st article of charge i.e., that he sought illegal gratification of money etc, was the same as that of the criminal charge filed in the CBI Court by the CBI, which was eventually closed for "mistake of facts". The 2nd article of charge was relating to the alleged failure of the applicant for not complying with Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in as much as he did not intimate the Ministry about his family members' doing business. The 3rd article of charge was pertaining to his alleged failure to comply to the requirement of Rule 18 regarding permission/intimation on acquisition of properties.
2.3. The 1st respondent has been frequently changing the IO and the 2nd IO who inquired into the charges submitted his report dt. 21.02.2014 gave a finding that the first article of charge is not proved. As regards the second and third articles of charges, he gave a finding that some of them are proved while some others are not proved. The DA, on consideration of the IO's report, gave a memo dt. 06.05.2015 giving his tentative disagreement with 4 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 the finding of IO in respect of Article 1 that was found to be not proved and accepted the finding in respect of the finding on Articles 2 and 3. As against the memo, the applicant submitted his reply dt. 25.05.2015. 2.4. While so, 1st respondent issued an order dt. 14.12.2018 stating that as there has been certain procedural lapse and to rectify the lapse, Shri A. S. Ponraj, the new IO is appointed. This order was further revised by another order appointing Shri. Joseph Jackson, in place of A. S. Ponraj, who had retired.
2.5. The applicant is seeking to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings on various grounds, among which the main ground is that the disciplinary proceedings have been protracted for a long period of time, extending to more than 9 years, in view of the mandatory provisions contained in the instructions of the Government and CVC. His further contention is that 1st article of charge is based on the same set of facts as in the Criminal complaint filed in the CBI Court which was closed for "mistake of facts"
and for lack of evidence. As regards, the second article of charge ie. non- compliance with the provisions of Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, he had given enough documentary evidence to show that the business concerns of his family members i.e. his deceased wife and his daughter are entirely independent of his own and he has no role to place in their business. The third article of charge ie., his non-compliance with the requirement of 5 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 intimation/approval for acquiring assets, his contention is that all the acquisitions were made from out of the funds of his deceased wife, who was an independent entrepreneur in her own right. It is further submitted that the Government of India have clarified that there shall not be any harassment with regard to the requirement of intimation. The requirement is to be fulfilled only when the transactions are made from out of the funds of the Government Servants. Further, CVC has clarified that such technical violations do not attract major penalty proceedings but only censure be awarded for such violations. Aggrieved by the unwarranted disciplinary proceedings and that too with huge delay, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is contended that the ACB, CBI, Chennai had registered a case on 05.09.2011 against the applicant for allegedly demanding Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification from one Shri M. Kumar, Director and Promoter, Human Rights Association for getting registration of his NGO under Section 25 of the Companies Act. On being arrested by CBI and detained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 05.09.2011, which was subsequently revoked on receipt of report of SP, CBI. In their report, CBI recommended that Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major penalty may be initiated against the applicant for 6 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. After accepting the recommendation of the ACB, CBI, Chennai, Regular Departmental Action (RDA) for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the applicant and a detailed charge sheet was issued on 07.12.2012 with following three articles of charges:-
I. Illegal exploitation of an applicant for the monetary gains; II. Wilfully engaged himself directly or indirectly in trade or business in the name of family members without intimating the department; III. Wilfully hiding the mandatory requirement of intimation to the Ministry about acquisition or disposal of movable and immovable properties as per the conduct rules.
Meanwhile the charged officer retired from Govt. service on superannuation on 30.11.2013 and hence, departmental proceedings instituted against him were deemed to be proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. While submitting the Inquiry Report on 21.02.2014, IO held the Article of Charge No. I as not proved. However, he held the Article of Charge No. II as proved that the charged officer was found guilty of running businesses in the name of his family members. The IO also held the Article of Charge No. III as partly proved i.e. the charged officer was found guilty of not intimating Government in respect of two properties acquired by him. The report of the IO was considered by the Disciplinary Authority on 28.04.2015. While the 7 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 DA tentatively accepted the findings of IO with respect to the Articles of Charges II and III, he tentatively disagreed with the findings of the IO in respect of Article of Charge-I, stating that the charged officer appeared to have solicited business for the firm M/s Prasang Consultant Pvt. Ltd., which was running in the name of his family members. A copy of the Inquiry Report along with the observations of the DA was forwarded to the CO seeking his comments. The DA while considering the submissions made by the CO vide his letter dt. 25.05.2015, decided on 30.09.2015 to refer the case to UPSC in accordance with Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The case was forwarded to UPSC for advice on 23.11.2015. However, UPSC returned the case due to non-furnishing of some documents viz. statement of defence of the CO, general examination of the CO, written brief of CO/PO, authentication of listed documents and translated versions of some prosecution documents.
3.2. It is contended that the matter was taken up with the IO/PO to locate the documents. IO was also requested to re-verify the entire case records and complete the procedural formalities as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, the explanations submitted by IO on the issues raised by UPSC was not satisfactory and also inconsistent with CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was also observed that soliciting of business was not part of the charge memo and the same was also not held by the IO. Hence, it was 8 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority that the Charged Officer may be given an opportunity to defend his case on this issue as part of natural justice. Accordingly, the case was reconsidered by the DA on 28.09.2018 and it was decided to appoint another IO for taking care of procedural formalities under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as pointed out by UPSC, and also for looking into the charge of soliciting business. Accordingly, Shri A. S. Ponraj was appointed as IO on 14.12.2018 with the request to complete the inquiry within 06 months. Consequent upon superannuation of IO on 31.05.2020, Shri K. G. Joseph Jackson was appointed as IO in the case on 22.06.2020 tο conduct inquiry afresh. The respondents have further contended that the inquiry report is awaited and the IO has been directed to furnish the same without any further delay. As such, there is no delay on the part of the respondents in conducting disciplinary proceedings in respect of the applicant. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his submissions made in the OA and prayed for grant of relief.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records including additional documents as well as written submissions filed by the learned counsel for applicant containing judgments cited in favour of the applicant. 9 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025
6. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following judgments/citations in support of his arguments :-
i. Judgment dt. 05.04.1990 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3045 of 1988 & 3046 of 1988 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and anr reported in CDJ 1990 SC 415;
ii. Judgment dt 08.08.2005 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4901 of 2005 in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in CDJ 2005 SC 592;
iii. Judgment dt. 23.09.2013 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 4245 of 2013 in the case of Union of India and anr Vs. Hari Singh reported in CDJ 2013 DHC 1293;
iv. Judgment dt. 30.03.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 1999 in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in CDJ 1999 SC 210;
v. Judgment dt. 10.05.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No. 2582 of 2006 in the case of G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & anr reported in CDJ 2006 SC 415;
vi. Judgment dt. 05.09.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2013 and batch in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. B.V.Gopinath & ors reported in CDJ 2013 SC 771;
10 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025vii. Judgment dt. 11.06.1979 of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in WP Appeal No. 71367 of 1969 in the case of M.R.Subramanyam Vs. Commandant, Madras Eng. Group and Centre reported in CDJ 1979 Kar HC 117;
viii. Judgment dt. 04.03.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3592-3593 of 2020 in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. P. Balasubrahmanyam reported in CDJ 2021 SC 169;
ix. Judgment dt. 07.04.1971 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1967 in the case of K.R.Deb Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in CDJ 1971 SC 262;
x. Judgment dt. 24.09.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2007 in the case of Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India & ors reported in CDJ 2007 SC 1461;
xi. Order dt. 30.03.2009 of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in the case of John Samuel Vs. The Director, Doordarshan Kendra and ors; xii. Order dt. 19.01.2018 of the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 561/2014 in the case of Biswanath Parida Vs. Union of India, rep by the Cabinet Secretary and ors;
xiii. Judgment dt. 07.04.1998 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan reported in CDJ 1998 SC 883;
11 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025xiv. Order dt. 23.10.2009 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 21569 of 2008 in the case of S.Sekhar Vs. Commissioner of Social Welfare;
xv. Order dt. 01.06.2022 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 16717 of 2013 in the case of A.Renkapa (deceased) and ors Vs. Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department and anr.
xvi. Judgment dt. 16.09.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 15479 of 1996 in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in CDJ 1999 SC 565;
xvii. Judgment dt. 01.12.2006 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5295 of 2006 in the case of M/s. Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors reported in CDJ 2006 SC 1088;
xviii. Order dt. 08.10.2010 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 577/2009 in the case of Shri. Raja Ram and anr Vs. Govt. of NCTD through Secretary, Education and ors;
xix. Judgment dt. 16.03.2011 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP Nos. 3780 & 18871 of 2010 in the case of Chandragiri Construction Company rep by its partner Mohideen Kunhi Kerala State Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai & anr reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 1552;
12 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025xx. Judgment dt. 15.10.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP No. 14380 of 2012 in the case of M/s. SBQ Steels Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, CE&ST, Guntur reported in CDJ 2012 APHC 1327; xxi. Order dt. 15.09.2014 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 21941 of 2014 in the case of M/s. Bharat Marine Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Chennai and anr;
xxii. Judgment dt. 30.04.2015 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP Nos. 27726 & 27727 of 2014 in the case of M/s. Mars Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 3955;
xxiii. Judgment dt. 19.09.2002 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Civil Appeal No. 2665 of 2001 in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Constable Parmod Kumar, Constable Jag Pravesh reported in CDJ 2002 DHC 1180.
7. Consequent upon a case registered by the CBI by the ACB, CBI, Chennai on 05.09.2011, the respondent authorities on 07.12.2012 framed charges for institution of major disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 containing three articles of charges. Subsequently, the Inquiring Officer was appointed on 11.04.2013 and the applicant retired from service on superannuation on 30.11.2013. Since the applicant retired from service on 30.11.2013 on superannuation, the departmental proceeding 13 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 was converted to Rule 9 proceedings under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The departmental proceeding contained three articles of charges and the Inquiring Officer after conducted the inquiry submitted his report on 21.02.2014 holding charge (i) as not proved, charge (ii) as proved and charge (iii) as partly proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge (i) and along with disagreement note, the matter was referred to UPSC on 30.09.2015 in accordance with the Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. UPSC returned the case due to non-furnishing of certain documents and inconsistency in the charge sheet. Thereafter, another Inquiring Officer was appointed on 14.12.2018 who also superannuated on 31.05.2020 before submitting inquiry report. Finally, 3rd Inquiring Officer on 22.06.2020 conducted the inquiry afresh. This has caused inordinate delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is circumstantial and not intentional on the part of the respondents and all actions have been taken with an objective of providing an opportunity to the charged officer in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in various judgments has observed that mere delay in the disciplinary proceedings is not fatal. Inordinate and unexplained 14 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings which caused prejudice to the charged employee needs to be quashed. The Courts have held that such delay curtails an employee's right to a speedy trial and causes mental agony but if justified by the department, the proceedings may continue.
10. In the instant case, the justification provided by the respondent authority is far from satisfactory. There was an unexplained delay of more than one year between the cause of action and framing of charge sheet against the applicant. While the rules stipulate a time period of 18 months for completion of a departmental inquiry, the respondent authority took 18 months only for appointing an Inquiring Officer. Even after retirement of the applicant on 30.11.2023, no effort seems to have been made by the Inquiring Officer who took long time to submit the report which was finally disagreed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, it took ten years for the respondents to rectify the mistakes pointed out by the UPSC in 2015. It is also noticed that the deficiencies pointed out by the UPSC were of very primary nature that the respondent authorities had not furnished documents such as statement of defence of the charged officer, general examination of the charged officer, written brief of the PO and CO, authentication of listed documents and translated versions of the prosecution documents.
11. The UPSC raised question on the disagreement note of the disciplinary authority observing that "soliciting business was not part of the 15 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 charge memo and the same was also not held by the IO." However, the disciplinary authority decided to conduct further inquiry against the applicant, by appointing another IO with new terms of reference as (i) to look into the issue of allegations of soliciting business by the CO and (ii) to fill the procedural gaps pointed out by the UPSC. In accordance with the provision under rule (8) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in the case of a retired employee approval of President is mandatory for initiation of any fresh or addition in article of charge memo but the same has not been followed. The Disciplinary Authority at their level decided to conduct further inquiry by altering the article of charge-I which is mentioned in the OM dt. 23.01.2025 of the respondents. All this goes to prove that the inquiry was conducted in a lackadaisical manner without following due procedure and the additional charge memo did not have the approval of competent authority.
12. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the order passed on 01.06.2013 in W.P No. 16717 of 2013 held that :-
"Ultimately, on 26.04.2013, which is after about 6 ½ years from the date on which the petitioner had submitted his further explanation, the impugned order of penalty came to be passed. On an overall view, in the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority had initiated the action against the petitioner and concluded the same, there is an inordinate delay, which could have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakrishnan vide order dt. 07.04.1998 has observed the following: - 16 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025
"It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration."
(emphasis supplied)
14. The High Court of Madras in WP No. 21569 of 2008 in S. Sekhar Vs The Commissioner of Social Welfare vide order dt. 23.10.2009 has observed as follows: -
"11. Also, it is a settled proposition that while considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules; but then, delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary 17 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
12. In the instant case, it appears that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in concluding the enquiry proceedings. But the respondent has appointed Enquiry Officer at four different points of time to conduct the enquiry. Despite completion of the enquiry, no final order is passed in this matter. In the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the delay is not on the part of the petitioner and it is only on the part of the respondent in concluding the proceedings. Simultaneous proceedings initiated by the Department as well as the criminal proceedings have ended in distinctive cause of actions. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the pendency of the criminal cases will cause delay in conclusion of the Departmental proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the case of Union of India & Another Vs Hari Singh, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 4245 of 2013 vide judgment dt. 23.09.2013 has observed the following: -
"25. It is therefore trite that delay which is unexplained and unreasonable would cause prejudice to the delinquent employee. Such delay clearly manifests the lack of seriousness on the part of the disciplinary authority in pursuing the charges against the employee. In the event of any employee deviating from path of honesty, efficiency and diligence, action should expeditiously be taken as per prescribed procedure. The Supreme Court has laid down the principles holding that unexplained and unreasonable delay per se results in prejudice to the charged officer except when the employer can show that the employee was responsible for delay or is otherwise able to explain the delay. While evaluating the impact of the delay, the court must consider the nature of the charge, its complexity and for what reason the delay has occurred."
(emphasis supplied)
16. It is noticed that the incident relates to 2010-11 and the applicant retired on 30.11.2013. Now after 12 years of retirement it is nearly impossible for the applicant to recollect, let alone defend his case which occurred more than 15 years ago. It is also observed that the applicant has 18 OA No. 538/2020 & MA 117/2025 more than 37 years of unblemished service record except the present one. Therefore, it is a fit case under "justice delayed is justice denied".
17. To conclude, we are of the view that there is a long unjustified delay of more than 12 years in concluding the departmental proceedings against a retired employee who is in the sunset years of his life. This delay makes it impossible for him to defend his case and thereby causes serious prejudice to the applicant. It is also observed that new charges have been added by the disciplinary authority without taking approval of the competent authority in the case of retired employees which is in contravention of rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant deserves to lead a peaceful retired life atleast after 12 years of his retirement. In view of this, the charge sheet dt. 07.12.2012 (Annexure A8) as well as all consequential actions/proceedings of the respondents are quashed and set aside for being bad in law.
18. The OA is allowed. Consequently, MA 117/2025 filed for stay of Office Memorandum dt. 23.01.2025 stands disposed of. No costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
27.02.2026
SKSI
Digitally signed
by HP
S.S. IYER, PS
Date:
2026.03.09
17:13:28 +05'30'