Jharkhand High Court
Harish Chandra Mahto vs Union Of India on 2 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:13694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3280 of 2020
----
Harish Chandra Mahto, Aged about 62 years, Son of Late Kesho Mahto, Resident of-Qr. No- D/T 1251, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ......Petitioner Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Coal through the Secretary, Ministry of Coal, having its office at Shastri Bhawan, P.O & P.S-Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Under Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Government of India having its office at Shastri Bhawan, P.O & P.S-Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization through its Commissioner and having its Headquarter at Police Line, P.O & P.S- Jagjivan Nagar, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
4. Commissioner - Cum Disciplinary Authority, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization having its Headquarter at Police Line, P.O & P.S- Jagjivan Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
5. Chief Vigilance Officer, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization having its Headquarter at Police Line, P.O. & P.S.- Jagjivan Nagar, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. UOI : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC
For the Resp.-CMPFO : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
---
08/02.05.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-3); issued by the 2nd Respondent under sub clause (i) of clause (b) of sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for initiation of departmental proceeding against the Petitioner after retirement; as the same is completely time barred in view of the provisions enshrined under Rule 9(2)(b) (ii) of C.C.S (Pension) Rules read with Rule 9(6)(a) of C.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The Petitioner has further challenged the charge- sheet dated 20.05.2020 issued by the 4th Respondent (Annexure-4); as the same has been issued in respect of an 1 2025:JHHC:13694 event which took place more than 4 years before the date of charge-sheet which is dehors the provisions contained in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules read with Rule 9(6)(a) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was an employee of Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter to be referred as 'CMPFO') which is a statutory trust constituted under the provisions of Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1948 and works under the aegis of Ministry of Coal, Government of India.
The Petitioner joined his service on 26.07.1983 and after being posted in different Regional Offices of CMPFO, he retired as Section Officer on 30.06.2019 from the Region- III, CMPFO, Ranchi.
The fact further reveals that after his superannuation, he received a Memorandum dated
22.11.2019 from the office of CVO, CMPFO and was called upon to give a reply with respect to the discrepancies pointed out in settlement of two claims. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted the reply on 09.12.2019; however on 24.02.2020, the 2nd Respondent accorded the sanction under sub clause (i) of clause (b) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 to initiate a departmental proceeding against the Petitioner.
The petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 20.05.2020 issued by the 4th respondent being the Disciplinary Authority, who proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against the Petitioner under Regulation 33 of Coal Mines Provident Fund (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1964.
Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner raised a preliminary objection and submitted a written statement of defence on 11.06.2020 on the point of maintainability of Memorandum dated 20.05.2020 as the same was time barred, inasmuch as, the proceeding has been instituted against the 2 2025:JHHC:13694 petitioner on 20.05.2020 with respect to events, which took place on 27.10.2015 and 04.02.2016 i.e., more than 4 years before institution of departmental proceeding.
Pursuant to the said reply, the 4th Respondent instead of dropping the charges continued with the departmental proceeding vide order dated 15.09.2020 by appointing the Inquiry Officer and by the same order, appointed the Presenting Officer.
4. Since the very initiation of departmental proceeding has been challenged in this writ application; as such, the facts relating to the same, which has been stated in Para-21 is reproduced hereunder:
"That it is humbly stated and submitted that the relevant dates in respect of the claims of (i.) Late Mathura Uraw, CMPF A/c no.-C/359032 and (ii.) Late Mohan Lohar, CMPF A/c No.-R/74/858 is given herein below:-
Sl. Name and CMPF A/c No. Date of receipt Date of the Date of final No. of the members of claim signature of approval by charged Regional employee Commissioner
1. Late Mathura Uraw, 06.10.2015 27.10.2015 28.10.2015 CMPF A/c no.-C/359032
2. Late Mohan Lohar CMPF 28.01.2016 04.02.2016 05.02.2016 A/c No.-R/74/858
5. It has been submitted by Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner that the departmental proceeding has been initiated on 20.05.2020 in respect of event which took place on 27.10.2015 and 04.02.2016, respectively. Mr. Kumar has also tendered the copy of the two claim forms, which is the subject matter of charge-sheet; the same has been taken on record by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025.
6. Ld. Counsel draws attention of this Court towards the Proviso (b) of Rule 9(2) of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, wherein it has been stipulated that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its 3 2025:JHHC:13694 finding to the President and the departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.
Relying upon the aforesaid provisions, it has been contended that admittedly; the charge-sheet has been issued and served upon the Petitioner after more than 4 years of the date of alleged event; as such, the very initiation of proceeding is dehors the provision of Rule 9 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rule.
Relying upon the aforesaid submission he prayed that the instant application be allowed and the impugned proceeding be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-CMPFO opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and heavily relied upon paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit. For brevity, Paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit is extracted hereinbelow:
" That in reply to the statement made in paragraph no.-1(i) to 1(iii) of the writ petition, under reply, it is himself stated by the petitioner that he received memorandum dated 22.11.2019 from the Office of CVO/CMPFO therefore the issue date of the memorandum is well within the limitation period i.e. the process of the department inquiry had been started well within the stipulated time bar with reference to the claim of Lt. Mohan Lohar against CMPF A/C No.-R/74/858. Version of fact called vid letter No.-CPF/120/SPECIAL Audit/Ranch-I/Surprise Visit/Hq/Vig/1756, dated 22.11.2019. It is pertinent to mention that these claims were forged in nature and the matter was also referred to CBI, Ranchi because of criminal angle. Considering the apparent fraud wherein the savings of members have been fraudulently withdrawn, hence it was decided to keep the case continued."
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, admittedly, the Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2019, thereafter he received a Memorandum dated 22.11.2019 from the office of CVO, CMPFO and was called upon to give an explanation with respect to the discrepancies pointed out in two claim papers.
As stated hereinabove, the said claim papers were signed by the Charged Officer on 27.10.2015 and 04.02.2016, respectively (Refer Para-4 hereinabove) and the 4 2025:JHHC:13694 same was approved by the Regional Commissioner on 28.10.2015 and 05.02.2016, respectively as stated in para- 21 of the writ petition and the said paragraph has been replied in para-25 of the counter affidavit by stating that the same is a matter of fact. Thus, there is no dispute with respect to the date of cause of action, for which a charge- sheet has been issued.
9. Rule 9 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules deals with the provisions giving right to the President to withhold or withdraw pension. The relevant provision of Rule 9(2)(a) and
(b) is extracted hereinbelow:
9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1) ............
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1) is instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before has 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 departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re employment,-
(1) 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 relation to the Government servant during his service................
Emphasis Supplied
10. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is crystal clear that if the departmental proceeding is not instituted while the government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. In the case at hand, admittedly, the charge-sheet was issued on 24.02.2020 for the alleged offence committed by the 5 2025:JHHC:13694 Petitioner on 27.10.2015 and 04.02.2016, respectively. Admittedly, the same is beyond 4 years, which is dehors the aforesaid Rule.
11. It has been strenuously argued by Ld. Counsel for the CMPFO that before issuance of the charge-sheet; a memorandum was issued on 22.11.2019 and the Petitioner has given a reply; therefore, it is incorrect to say that the charge-sheet was issued beyond the period of 4 years.
This argument of the Respondent-CMPFO is misconceived and without any basis. It is against the provision as enshrined under 9(6)(a) of C.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1972, that for the purpose of this Rule, the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner. Thus, there is no two opinions, rather it is settled principle of law that a departmental proceeding is deemed to be initiated from the date of issuance of charge-sheet and any pre-enquiry or any show-cause prior to issuance of charge-sheet will not be construed as initiation of departmental proceeding, but merely a fact finding exercise.
In the case of UCO Bank and another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported in (2008) 5 SCC 257, the matter has been dealt in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has laid down the law in Paragraphs-30 & 31, which are reproduced hereunder:
"30. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the employer may take resort to a preliminary inquiry, but it will bear repetition to state that the same has a limited role to play. But, in absence of the statutory rules operating in the field, resorting to a preliminary enquiry would not by itself be enough to hold that a departmental proceeding has been initiated.
31. Initiation of a disciplinary proceeding may lead to an evil or civil consequence. Thus, in absence of clear words, the court must lean in favour of an interpretation which has been applied by this Court in the main judgment."
12. As a matter of fact, the very sanction for initiation of departmental proceeding was pursuant to the internal enquiry; as such, the entire argument of the Counsel representing CMPFO is baseless and dehors the settled 6 2025:JHHC:13694 proposition of law and the statutory provisions which are binding on the Respondent-Organization.
It is further held that the continuance of departmental proceeding is nothing but misuse of process of law and the same cannot be entertained by this Court.
13. As a result, the instant application is allowed and the order dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-3) issued by the 2nd Respondent and also the charge-sheet dated 20.05.2020 issued by the 4th Respondent (Annexure-4); is quashed and set aside.
14. Pending I.As. if any, also stands disposed of.
15. Though it is a fit case for imposition of cost upon both the 2nd and 4th Respondent for misusing the process of law, inasmuch as, the 2nd Respondent was expected to know the law before giving sanction to start departmental proceeding and so as the 4th Respondent; but instead of imposing cost upon both the Respondents, this Court warns both the Respondents to be cautious in future.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk AFR 7