Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Harish Chander Pal vs Employees State Insurance Corporation on 5 December, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2465 of 2021
Orders reserved on : 18.11.2025
Orders pronounced on : 05.12.2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Harish Chander Pal,aged 64 years
s/o Sh A.R. Pal,
Retired Branch Manager,from ESIC.
R/o 783,Sector46,Faridabad(Har)
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Employees StateInsurance Corporation,
Through the Director General,
Panchdeep Bhawan,New Delhi-2.
2. The Director General,
Employees StateInsurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, New Delhi-2.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ankit Gupta)
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL
BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi,
S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone=
27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0
cb497, SERIALNUMBER=
99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7
SAXENA
b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Item No.43/C-2 2 OA No.2465/2021
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned the charge sheet dt.4.12.2020 (Communicated vide letter dated 11.01.2021) under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972, after retirement of the applicant and the order dated 5.10.2021 (Annex. A/2) and entire disciplinary proceedings declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary, against the rules and against the principle of natural justices.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was appointed in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in 1980 as a Lower Division Clerk and retired on 30.04.2017 from the post of Assistant Director after rendering more than 36 years of service.
2.1 However, on 11.01.2021, after more than three and a half years of his retirement, the applicant was served with a Charge Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which was communicated to him vide letter dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure A/1). The charges levelled against the applicant pertain to his tenure as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Sector-27B, Faridabad from 30.06.2016 to 06.12.2016. The article of charge reads as under:-
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENAKSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 3 OA No.2465/2021 "Article of Charge-1I Shri Harish Chander Pal, while working as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Sector 27-B, Faridabad for the period from 30.06.2016 to 06.12.2016, has commited gross misconduct, in as much as he passed maternity benefit payments in respect of 237 IWs on the basis of forged/fake/fabricated documents and without ascertaining the genuineness of the confinement certificate produced by IWs that resulted in fraudulent payment towards maternity benefit to the ineligible IWs leading to financial loss to the Corporation to the Tune of Rs.844,41,512/- (Rs. Eighty-four lax forty-one thousand five hundred and twelve only)"
2.2 Applicant states that when the Director General, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority, proceeded to appoint the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and upon commencement of the enquiry proceedings, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 21.08.2021, setting out all relevant facts and grounds. However, the Vigilance Department rejected the said representation vide order dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure A/2). In the said order dated 05.10.2021, it has been stated that in the 216th meeting of the Standing Committee held on 04.10.2019, modalities for conducting disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules were approved, including the requirement that "sanction of the Chairman, Standing Committee shall be obtained for initiation of departmental proceedings against the charged official." Further stated that the decision dated 04.10.2019 is not applicable in his case, since he had already retired on 30.04.2017 and the rules prevailing on the date of retirement alone would govern his case. Secondly, the said Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 4 OA No.2465/2021 decision dated 04.10.2019 is itself illegal, as it was taken without obtaining approval from the Central Government, as required under Regulation 8 (1) of the ESIC (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959. The applicant stated that the respondents have incorrectly stated that the applicant processed fraudulent claims online up to 10.01.2017. The applicant ceased to function as Branch Manager of Branch Office, Sector-27B, Faridabad upon his transfer, and in compliance with Regional Office Order No. 171 of 2016 dated 05.12.2016, he handed over charge to one Shri V.K. Aggarwal on 03.12.2016. The charge-handing-over report, duly signed by both officers, is available with the Regional Director (Admn.). The respondents' plea is, therefore, an afterthought, especially since the charge memorandum itself alleges that the applicant served in that capacity only up to 06.12.2016. In the impugned order dated 11.01.2021, it is stated that the charge memorandum dated 04.12.2020 has been signed by the Director General. This is factually incorrect, as no such date appears on the signature nor is there any dispatch or endorsement number on the memorandum. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that the impugned charge memorandum was issued to the applicant only on 11.01.2021, i.e., more than four years after the alleged incident rendering the respondents' justification untenable. Hence, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the reliefs quoted above.Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 5 OA No.2465/2021
3. Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed rejoinder refuting the contents of the reply of the respondents.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that admittedly the applicant is a retired employee and after retirement, he is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of Regulation 8 (1) of the ESIC (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959 as the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 was served upon the applicant only on 11.01.2021, purportedly under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. For ready reference, Rule 9 (2)
(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is reproduced below:
"(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 during his service."
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a plain reading of Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes two statutory conditions abundantly clear: (a) disciplinary Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 6 OA No.2465/2021 proceedings after retirement cannot be initiated except with the prior sanction of the President; and (b) no such proceedings can be initiated in respect of an event that took place more than four years before the date of initiation. In the present case, the impugned charge sheet has been issued in violation of both these mandatory conditions, and therefore the entire proceedings are rendered legally unsustainable.
4.2 Learned counsel further emphasised that Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) categorically mandates that proceedings "shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President." However, the impugned Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 (Annexure A-1) shows that the purported sanction was accorded by the Chairman, Standing Committee, ESIC, who is the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment. It is submitted that only the Minister-in-Charge of the Labour & Employment Ministry is competent to accord sanction on behalf of the President for initiating post-retirement disciplinary proceedings. Since no such sanction of the competent authority was obtained, the charge sheet is vitiated ab initio. Consequently, the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.
4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that under Regulation 8 (1) of the ESIC (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, the Standing Committee, with the approval of the Central Government, may decide whether to adopt the CCS (Pension) Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 7 OA No.2465/2021 Rules with or without modifications. In the present case: (i) no decision has been taken by the Standing Committee to adopt Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) with any modification, and (ii) no approval has been obtained from the Central Government for any deviation.
Therefore, the mandatory requirement of obtaining the President's prior approval under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) remains fully applicable. The failure to secure such approval before issuing the charge sheet renders the initiation of proceedings patently illegal and contrary to the governing rules. Hence, the impugned charge memorandum is liable to be set aside as being contrary to law and devoid of legal authority.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Charge Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 has been issued under Rule (2)
(b) (i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Benefit Branch R.O Faridabad vide letter dated 02.06.2019 informed to the Vigilance Branch, R.O, Faridabad regarding Special Audit Report in case of Fraudulent Maternity Benefit Payment. Regional office of ESIC, Faridabad (Haryana) intimated that the Internal Audit had observed irregularities in payment of Maternity Benefit by the Branch Offices Sector- 27-B and Sector-23, Faridabad. To investigate the matter in detail a team was constituted by the concerned authorities.
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENAKSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 8 OA No.2465/2021 5.1. In lieu of the recommendations made by the investigating team, a special audit has been done during the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2019 related to maternity benefit payments.
The following was found by the investigating team:
i. Out of 1413 cases wherein payments towards maternity benefit were made, in 1030 cases claims were processed and payments were done on the basis of fake/forged/fabricated birth certificates/discharge certificate/confinement certificate.
ii. An amount of Rs. 4,98,63,840/- (Rupees four crore ninety-
eight lakh sixty-three thousand right hundred and forty only) was siphoned by M/s Hansika Enterprises by way of submitting fraudulent maternity benefit claims.
iii. Maternity benefits cases were prepared in the Branch office manually in spite of having specific instructions about preparing such cases online.
iv. Multiple payments were made into single bank account i.e. total of 834 maternity benefit payments were made in 222 bank accounts.
v. Out of 1030 maternity benefit cases in which maternity benefits claims were processed on the basis of forged/fabricated documents, in 849 cases computer system installed at Branch offices of Faridabad at, Sector 23 and Sector 27B, and even private computers were used to make Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 9 OA No.2465/2021 online changes in the credentials of IWs without any supporting documents. (Annexure-R2) vi. On further examination of special audit report, it was found that the applicant changed the credentials of 12 IWs during the period from 16.08.2016 to 06.09.2016 without verifying requisite documents by using his official ID. Further, he also passed maternity benefit claims in respect of forged/fabricated documents that resulted in fraudulent payments amounting to Rs. 84,41, 512/- (Rs. Eighty- four lakhs forty-one thousand five hundred and twelve only) by him which constituted part of the amount misappropriated Rs. 4,98,63,840/- (Rs. Four crore ninety-eight lakhs sixty-
three thousand eight hundred and forty only). During this time the applicant was posted as Branch manager in the Branch Office, Sector 27B, Faridabad, Haryana.
5.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are applicable on the retired employee of the Corporation by virtue of Regulation 8 (1) of ESIC (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959. Further, the CBI, ACB of Chandigarh has also registered an FIR against the applicant along with others on 29.12.2020 under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 & Section 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 10 OA No.2465/2021 act of fraud in order to avail cash benefit from ESI Corporation (Annexure R-4).
5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the Standing Committee, ESIC in its 216th meeting held on 04.10.2019 approved the modalities for conduct of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Relevant portion of the said modalities read as under:
"In accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the cases where the charged Officer/Official was retired before the issuance of Charge-Sheet:
i. the sanction of the chairman, Standing Committee shall be obtained for initiation of the departmental proceeding against the Charged Official.
ii. the Charge Sheet against the official shall have to be issued in respect of any event which took place within 4 years before issue of charge sheet.
iii. After the approval of the initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the Chairman Standing Committee, the charge sheet shall be issued under the signature of the Director General, ESIC who shall conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the employee during his service.
5.4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the ESIC framed ESIC (Staff & Condition of Service) Regulations, 1959 with the approval of Central Government and by virtue of Regulation 8 (1) of the said Regulations, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are applicable on the employees of the Corporation.
Section 17 (2) of ESI Act, 1948 reads as under:
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENAKSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 11 OA No.2465/2021 "The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of services of the members of the staff of the Corporation shall be such as may be specified in the regulations made by the Corporation in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay:
Provided that where the Corporation is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government.
[Provided further that this sub-section shall not apply to appointment of consultants and specialists in various fields appointed on contract basis]."
5.5. Furthermore, in accordance with Regulation 24-A of ESIC (Staff & Condition of Service) Regulations, 1959 the Standing Committee shall be competent authority to exercise all the powers and functions which are vested in the President/Local Government/Ministries or Departments of GOI, under various Central Government Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this clearly shows that the Standing Committee has been delegated with all the powers and functions which are vested in President of Govt. of India under various C.G rules. A meeting was held on dated 4.10.2019 in which the Standing Committee approved the modalities as regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the employees retired from the Corporation. In accordance with the above mentioned rule the charge sheet has been issued under the signature of Director General after the approval of Chairman of Standing Committee.Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 12 OA No.2465/2021 REJOINDER
6. In rejoinder the applicant reiterated that in the order dated 5.10.2021 it has been stated that in 216 meeting held on 4.10.2019 standing committee approved the modalities for conduct disciplinary proceedings under rule 9 of the CCS (Pension)Rules, in which the "the sanction of chairman, standing committee shall be obtained for initiation of the departmental proceedings against the charged official".
However, firstly, the decision dt.4.10.2019 is not applicable on the applicant, as he had already retired on 30.4.2017 and the rules which were available on the date of retirement are applicable on the applicants and secondly, this decision dated 04.10.2019 itself is illegal, as the same has not been taken without approval of the central Govt as per as per the Regulation 8 (1) of the ESIC (Staff & Condition) Regulation, 1959.
6.1. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that in the impugned order, the respondents have claimed that the Director General signed the charge sheet on 04.12.2020 which is factually incorrect and as there is no such date in the signature and there is no such dispatch/endorsement number on the top of the Memorandum and moreover, it is admitted fact that the same has been issued to the applicant on 11.01.2021, i.e. after the four years of the alleged incident and, Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 13 OA No.2465/2021 therefore, all the pleas taken by the respondents are totally illegal in the eyes of law.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
ANALYSIS:
8. The applicant was working in the respondent organisation for more than 36 years and retired from service on 30.04.2017.
The respondents have initiated a disciplinary action vide charge Memorandum dated 04.12.2020 which was communicated to the applicant on 11.01.2021. The charges framed against the applicant pertain to period from 30.06.2016 to 06.12.2016 when he was working as a Bank Manager, Faridabad. The applicant contends that he is a retired employee and any disciplinary action against the applicant after his retirement is governed under the relevant clauses of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per Regulation 8 (1) of the ESIC (Staff & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1959 and the charge Memorandum has been served upon to the applicant under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He further states that no decision has been taken by the Standing Committee to adopt Rule 9 (2)
(b) (i) with any modification and no approval has been obtained from the Central Government for any deviation.
9. In the impugned Memorandum of charge dated 04.12.2020, which was received by the applicant on 11.01.2021, it has been Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 14 OA No.2465/2021 mentioned that a sanction has been accorded by the Chairman, Standing Committee, ESIC under Rule 9 (2) (b) (i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to hold inquiry against the applicant. The Article of Charge of misconduct, misbehaviour and a list of witnesses by whom the Article of Charge was proposed to be sustained was provided to the applicant with the Memorandum of Charge. The applicant was directed to submit his findings within ten days from the date of receipt of the above Memorandum of Charge. The Article of Charge reads as follows:
"STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI HARISH CHANDER PAL, BRANCH MANAGER (RETD.).
Article of Charge-I Shri Harish Chander Pal while working as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Sector 27-B, Faridabad for the period from 30/06/2016 to 06/12/2016, has committed gross misconduct, in as much as he passed maternity benefit payment in respect of 237 IWs on the basis of forged/fake/fabricated documents and without ascertaining the genuineness of the confinement certificate produced by IWs that resulted in fraudulent payment towards Maternity benefit to the ineligible IWs leading to financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 84,41,512/- (Rs. Eighty-four lac forty-one thousand five hundred and twelve only) (ANURADHA PRASAD) DIRECTOR GENERAL"
10. The format for issuing order and Memorandum by the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings after retirement has been prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENAKSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 15 OA No.2465/2021 For facility of reference, the relevant formats are reproduced as under:
"FORMS FORMAT 2 (See Rule 8) Sanction for instituting departmental proceedings after retirement No...............
Government of India Ministry/Department of............. Dated the....................
ORDER WHEREAS it has been made to appear that Shri/Smt/Km............... while serving as..................... in the Ministry/ Department from................to................... was............. (here specify briefly the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which it is proposed to institute departmental proceedings):
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, the President hereby accords sanction for institution of the departmental proceedings against the said Shri/Smt./Km.........................The President further directs that the said departmental proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 14 and 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, (here specify the authority by whom the departmental 1965, by....................... (here specify the authority by whom the departmental proceedings should be conducted) at....................(here specify the place at which the departmental proceedings would be conducted).
By order and in the name of the President ................................................. (Name and designation of the competent authority) No...........................
Copy forwarded to Shri/Smt./Km........................ Copy also forwarded to Shri/Smt./Km......................Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
Item No.43/C-2 16 OA No.2465/2021
FORMAT 3
(See Rule 8)
Memorandum for instituting departmental
proceedings after retirement
No................................
Government of India Ministry of....................
Department of.................
Dated the........................
MEMORANDUM In pursuance of the sanction accorded by the President under Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, for instituting departmental proceedings against Shri/Smt./Km..........., vide Ministry/Department of........... Order No............dated,................ it is proposed to hold an inquiry against the said Shri/Smt./Km........... in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rules 14 and 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The enquiry shall be conducted by.............(here specify the authority by whom the departmental proceedings are to the Presidential sanction) at...........(here specify the name of the place where proceedings are to be conducted).
2. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge (Annexure I). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure II). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexures III and IV).
3. Shri/Smt./Km................ is directed to submit within 10 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his/her defence and also to state whether he/she desires to be heard in person.Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 17 OA No.2465/2021
4. He/she is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as aici pof admitted. He/she should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article charge.
5. Shri/Smt./Km............ is further informed that if he/she does not submit his/her written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para. 3 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or the orders/directions issued against him/her ex parte.
6. The receipt of this Memorandum may be acknowledged.
By order and in the name of the President .................................................................
(Name and designation of the competent authority)* OR ....................................................................
(Name and designation of the competent authority which has been directed by the President to conduct the departmental proceedings) To Shri/Smt./Km.............................. .....................................................
ANNEXURE-1 Statement of articles of charge framed against Shri/Smt./Km............................... (name of the retired Government servant) formerly......................................
Article - I That the said Shri/Smt./Km as during the period while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri/Smt./Km.........................Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 18 OA No.2465/2021 Article - II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri/Smt./Km....................................
Article - III That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri/Smt./Km..........................
ANNEXURE-II Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support against Shri/Smt/Km.............. (name of the retired Government servant) formerly........................
Article - II Article - III ANNEXURE-III ANNEXURE-III List of documents by which the articles of charge framed against (name of retired Government servant) Shri/Smt./Km. formerly are proposed to be sustained.
ANNEXURE-IV List of Witnesses by whom the articles of charge framed against Shri/Smt./Km............ (name of the retired Government servant) are proposed to be sustained."
11. The issue of delegation of power to the DG, ESIC or the direction of the Standing Committee by the Central Government was examined by this Tribunal in OA No. 378/2022 on 11.01.2024. Paras 12, 13, 22 and 23 of the order read as under:
"12. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the provisions of 5th Schedule of Regulation 12 of the ESIC (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1959, the Regional Director is competent authority to impose minor penalty and Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 19 OA No.2465/2021 any authority, who is competent to impose any of the penalties, as prescribed under the said Regulation can initiate the disciplinary proceedings in view of the provisions of Regulation 13 of the aforesaid Regulation and, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in issuance of the impugned charge memo. He further submits that the representation of the applicant preferred to IO was duly processed and the same was considered by the competent authority and the competent authority has not acceded to the request of the applicant and the applicant was informed accordingly. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute that the decision of the competent authority has never been served upon the applicant before issuance of the communication dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure R/6) vide which the impugned IO's report has been supplied to the applicant seeking his defence in response thereto. It is also not in dispute that the communication dated 29.03.2019 (Annexure R/5), stated to be decision of the competent authority on applicant's representation for change of IO has not even been endorsed to the applicant and it is only communication of a decision to Director and on the basis of such decision, with said Regional respect to the IO report, it was communicated to the applicant vide communication dated 29.03.2019. Learned counsel, by referring to affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, has stated that though the Standing Committee competent authority for imposing penalty upon the retired employees of the respondents, however, the said power has been delegated to the Chairman of the said Standing Committee and inasmuch as modalities were framed for dealing with the cases of the retired employees of the respondents' Corporation and the same was placed before the Meeting dated Standing Committee in its 04.10.2019 wherein it was proposed that the Chairman, Standing Committee shall issue the order of penalty and the same shall be subsequently reported to the Standing Committee in its ensuing meeting. The Standing Committee approved the said modalities and on the basis approval of the Standing Committee, the respondents were dealing with the cases of retired ESIC employees and orders were being passed by the Chairman of the Standing Committee. He further submits that since only such modalities and orders passed by the Chairman were to be placed before the Standing Committee in the subsequent meeting, no notification in this regard has been issued so far.
13. Mr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No.2296/2022, by referring to the pleadings filed on behalf of the respondents, has vehemently opposed the claim of the Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 20 OA No.2465/2021 applicant. He has argued that though the Director General, who has issued the impugned charge memo is not the competent authority in terms of the relevant rules and regulations, however, the power has been delegated to him by the competent authority and, therefore, in view of delegation of power to him he has become the competent authority and thus there is no illegality in the impugned charge memo. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant relate to the period well within four years prior of issuance of the impugned charge memo, therefore, the reliance made by the learned counsel for the applicant on provisions 9 (2) (b) (i) of CCS.
.xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
22. Similarly, the provision of Regulation 24-A of the Regulation ibid categorically provides that all the powers and functions which are vested in the President i.e. local government, Ministries or Departments of Government of India under the various Central Governments Rules shall be exercised by the Standing Committee of the ESIC and in view of the proviso of Rule of Regulation 8(6), the Standing Committee, with the approval of the Central Government, can decide not to adopt any such modification or as the case may be beside to adopt them with various variations Standing Committee may deem fit. The said as the Pension Rules of the Central Government shall apply either without or any modification or as the case may be with such variations as may be made.
23. It is an admitted case that for delegation of the powers through the DG, ESIC or the Chairman of the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee has never taken approval of the Central Government and, therefore, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to hereinabove, the delegation being claimed in favour of the Director General, ESIC or the Chairman of the ESIC is no delegation in the eyes of law. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, Regulation, Law and discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside."
12. The above order of this Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Smt. Uma Aggarwal & Ors.Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 21 OA No.2465/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 17357/2024. Para 16 of the judgment dated 25.02.2025 in the matter reads as under:
"16. In the circumstances, while uploading the order of the Tribunal insofar as it sets aside the penalty order dated 16 September 2021, we issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued qua the order to the extent it holds the institution of the disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Director to be without jurisdiction."
13. There is nothing on record to suggest that the sanction for instituting departmental proceedings after retirement of the applicant was according to the format as mentioned in para 8 above. Further in the order dated 05.10.2021 it has been stated that in the 216th meeting held on 04.10.2019 Standing Committee approved the modalities for conducting disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in which it was mentioned that the sanctions of the Chairman, Standing Committee shall be obtained for initiation of the Departmental Proceedings against the charged official. The issue of delegation of power of the Central Government to the Chairman has been adjudicated in OA No. 378/2022 (supra) wherein in para 23 of the said order as mentioned in para 11 above, the Standing Committee has never taken approval of the Central Government and, therefore, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, referred to hereinabove, the delegation being claimed in favour of the Director General, ESIC or the Chairman of the ESIC is no delegation in the eyes of law. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, Regulation, Law and discussion, we are of the view that the Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA KSHITIJ DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 Item No.43/C-2 22 OA No.2465/2021 impugned order deserve to be quashed and set aside. Even if for the sake of argument we accept that the power of the Hon'ble President of India to initiate departmental proceedings after retirement has been validly delegated to the Chairman, Standing Committee (which was held to be not delegated) how such a decision taken on 04.10.2019 shall be made applicable retrospectively to the applicant who retired on 30.04.2017. In other words, when the applicant retired on 30.04.2017, how can the decision dated 04.10.2019 be applicable in the case of the applicant?
14. In view of the decisions of this Tribunal and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this matter and also in view of the statutory position laid down to seek sanction of the competent authority to institute departmental proceedings after retirement and the procedure to be followed to seek such sanction has not been followed in this matter. The OA deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, the OA is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 04.12.2020 (communicated vide letter dated 11.01.2021) is quashed and set aside.
16. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
17. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ks/
Digitally signed by KSHITIJ SAXENA
KSHITIJ
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, OU=Court Master, PostalCode=110023, L=South West Delhi, S=Delhi, STREET=Sarojani Nagar South West Delhi, T=8812, Phone= 27958d02064f0899c779a849fcb4582322cd66712cf168f16fde51110c0 cb497, SERIALNUMBER= 99ccd30c1d7100e2f66e5d40a49062fcfdcd7498260908f86b87654eb7 SAXENA b283b4, [email protected], CN=KSHITIJ SAXENA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.16 14:47:10+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0