Dismissed

Bal Mukund Mathur v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2024CW/2602/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a post-retirement charge-sheet for wilful absence from duty since 1979 and seeking quashing of disciplinary proceedings with consequential benefits. The court held Rule 7(3) governs judicial proceedings only, departmental proceedings after retirement are permitted under Rule 7(2)(b), and writ does not lie ordinarily against a charge-sheet. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition dismissed, stay and pending applications disposed of.

Bal Mukund Mathur Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2602/2000

¶3

Bal Mukund Mathur S/o Late Shri Shalig Ramji Mathur, Aged about 69 yrs, R/o- C/o Sanjay Prakash Mathur, House No. 620, Balaji Nagar (Rang Bari), Kota, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Department of Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

Director, Medical & Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶8

Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶9

Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Kota.

¶10

Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Sharma, assisted by Ms. Dhriti Laddha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy, GC for res.
	Nos. 3 & 4
	Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv. For
	Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

20/03/2024

¶16

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to charge-sheet dated 23.03.1999 and all further proceedings and to pay all consequential benefits.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the chargesheet dated 23.03.1999 is liable to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the petitioner was superannuated in the month of October 1998, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 7(3) of

¶18

[CW-2602/2000]

¶19

(2 of 9)

¶20

the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996, no judicial proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. He also submits that there is a delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner on 23.03.1999.

¶21

Ms. Megha Sharma, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG for state-respondents submitted that this matter may be adjourned because they are not having the case file.

¶22

Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, Dy. GC appearing for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submits that the inquiry proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Rules. He also brought to the notice of this Court that after issuance of charge-sheet disciplinary proceedings were concluded and finally punishment order was passed on 19.01.2001 and penalty of withholding 20% of pension was imposed.

¶23

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 6. Since the matter pertains to year 2000, therefore request made on behalf of the state-respondent for adjournment is declined and the petition is being disposed finally.

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the charge-sheet issued on 23.03.1999 with the charge of wilful absence from duties since 07.03.1979. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

¶25

[CW-2602/2000]

¶26

(3 of 9)

¶27

for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the charge-sheet. Submitting explanation to the charge-sheet by the petitioner shows that the petitioner has resorted to the disciplinary proceeding by participating in it by way of submitting explanation to the charge-sheet. After completion of the disciplinary proceeding as per the procedure given under the Rajasthan Civil Services (classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1958), the respondents have issued the punishment order on 19.01.2001 with a penalty of stoppage of 20% of pension.

¶28

The petitioner was/is having a statutory remedy of appeal against the order of penalty dated 19.01.2001.

¶29

The basic issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules the respondents cannot issue chargesheet against the petitioner after his retirement in the month of October, 1998. Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules reads as under:-

¶30

“7. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension

¶31

(1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension 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 his service including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement:

¶32

Provided that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:

¶33

(4 of 9)

¶34

[CW-2602/2000]

¶35

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of “rupees one thousand two hundred seventy five per mensem.”

¶36

(2)

¶37

(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 reemployment, 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:

¶38

Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Governor.

¶39

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his reemployment-

¶40

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor,

¶41

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and

¶42

(iii)shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor 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.

¶43

(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.

¶44

(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or

¶45

(5 of 9)

¶46

[CW-2602/2000]

¶47

otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 90 shall be sanctioned.

¶48

(5) Where the Governor decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant.

¶49

(6) For the purpose of this rule,-

¶50

(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the charges together with a statement of allegations on which they are based, or the proposal of Government to take disciplinary action together with the allegations on which it is proposed to be taken, are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and

¶51

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -

¶52

(i) in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and

¶53

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the court.”

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 to support his contention. On bare reading of Sub-Rule (3), it reveals that the same relates to the judicial proceeding. The relevant provisions is Sub-Rule (2)(b) of Rule 7, which governs the departmental proceedings after retirement of a Government servant/employee. Sub-Rule (2)(b) of Rule 7 permits the respondent-Government to initiate disciplinary proceeding/ departmental proceeding against a Government servant even after

¶55

[CW-2602/2000]

¶56

(6 of 9)

¶57

his/her retirement, subject to certain conditions. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not adhered to the conditions prescribed under Sub-Rule (2)(b) of Rule 7.

¶58

The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents cannot initiate disciplinary proceeding by issuing charge-sheet against the petitioner after four years of the date of incident, which amounts to misconduct. He has submitted that as per the charge levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have remain absent from duties since 07.03.1979 wilfully and the petitioner stood retire in the month of October, 1998, and thus the disciplinary proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioner after four years from his retirement. He has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank & Anr. Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2129 and in the case of B.J. Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1109 and upon order dated 14.09.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan; SBCWP No. 5731/1999 .

¶59

Since none of the cases as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to the charge of misconduct of wilful absence from service, the petitioner cannot get any benefit from the aforesaid judgments because in matters of wilful absence the cause of action for disciplinary proceeding is even last day of his absence. Charge of wilful absence from a particular date till the concern employee joins the duty or retire is a continuous

¶60

[CW-2602/2000]

¶61

(7 of 9)

¶62

misconduct and cannot be treated to be misconduct committed on the first date from which the petitioner remained absent. In the cases regarding charges of misconduct on some other ground can be an incident of a particular date.

¶63

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, in para 13, 14 & 16 has observed as under:-

¶64

“ 13.It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

¶65

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere showcause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

¶66

15. …………..

¶67

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-

¶68

[CW-2602/2000]

¶69

(8 of 9)

¶70

cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.”

¶71

It is well settled law that a charge to a charge-sheet under writ jurisdiction before the High Court can be made only in case the charge-sheet is issued by an incompetent authority in view of the relevant Rules or in case of gross violation of any other Rule, which prohibits for issuance of charge-sheet. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner by a competent authority, but he has taken shelter of Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1996, which as per him prohibits the respondents from issuing charge-sheet to the petitioner after his retirement. It is relevant to mention here that the Rule 7(3) of Rules of 1996 as referred by the counsel for the petitioner relates to the judicial proceeding and not to the disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding after retirement is permitted under Sub-Rule (2)(b) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 with certain conditions, but the counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any kind of violation of the provisions of Sub-Rule(2)(b) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996.

¶72

While disposing of this writ petition, the Court is also conscious of the fact that after issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted an explanation to the charges levelled against him and thereafter the disciplinary proceedings were concluded by issuance of order dated 19.01.2001, whereby the petitioner has been punished with the penalty of withholding 20% of the pension.

¶73

[CW-2602/2000]

¶74

In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition to interfere in charge-sheet issued against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶75

Since there was no proper assistance from the staterespondent, this Court would like to advice the State Government to make proper arrangements for assisting the Court for proper adjudication of the matter in the interest of the State.

¶76

Since the main petition has been dismissed, stay application and all pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶77

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶78

GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /3

Bal Mukund Mathur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Mukund Mathur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar S/O Jawahar Lal Vs Principal Secretary, Department of Education

Ramesh Chand Meena S/O Banshidhar Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surendra Mohan Sharma S/O Late Shri Durendra Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Choudhary S/O Sh. Kesar Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Home Secretary

Rambabu Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Shikha Jain Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.