it2025_00887 — Disciplinary proceedings are considered to be initiated when the charge-sheet is issued by the competent authority and received by the delinquent employee. Issue of a charge-memo, under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 after retirement of the employee who is held to have committed more than four years is against Rule 8 (2) (c) (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

IT Rules

Disciplinary proceedings are considered to be initiated when the charge-sheet is issued by the competent authority and received by the delinquent employee. Issue of a charge-memo, under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 after retirement of the employee who is held to have committed more than four years is against Rule 8 (2)
(c)
(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 — The given chunk pertains to an appeal (OA) made by a retired Chemical Examiner, Grade-II against the legality of a charge memorandum issued post-retirement under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Applicant ... — Facts: The Applicant joined Government service on 15-11-1996 as Chemical Assistant, Grade II (Group B, Non-Gazetted) under the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Mumbai, under Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. She was promoted as Chemical Assistant, Grade I in 1999, later selected through UPSC and appointed as Chemical Examiner, Grade II (Group ‘A’) in 2010, and served at Vadodara, Kandla and finally at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works (GOAW), Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant applied for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on 9-1-2024 giving three months’ notice period which was accepted by the competent authority and the Applicant was informed by notification on 9-4-2024 that the President is pleased to accept the notice of the Applicant for Voluntary Retirement under Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 with effect from 12-4-2024 (A/N) and accordingly, she was relieved from her duties at the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur on 12-4-2024. The Applicant contended that despite her eligibility, the Respondents unlawfully withheld her pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits for several months, causing mental harassment. She alleged that a charge memorandum, dated 12-4-2024 was issued by the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 13-2-2025, only after her relief on 12-4-2024, making the disciplinary proceedings illegal and mala fide. She further asserted that the date on the charge memorandum appeared to be manipulated to falsely show initiation prior to acceptance of VRS. The Applicant also submitted that she was denied legible copies of relied-upon documents, procedural violations under CCS (CCA) Rules and rules against the process, against her VRS being granted after due vigilance clearance without reference to any pending disciplinary proceedings. She further alleged inordinate delay in assessment of dues, improper handling of gratuity deductions, and failure to process pension benefits within the prescribed time. She appeared to have been fabricated by noting the date as 8-5-2024. Hence the present OA. The Applicant, appearing as party in person, contended that the impugned charge memorandum is illegal and liable to be quashed. She argued that under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after four years of the alleged misconduct. She contended that original records supporting the charge memorandum are unavailable and only photocopies were supplied, rendering it inauthentic. The Applicant also asserted that her VRS was granted after due vigilance clearance, with no pending disciplinary proceedings noted. Since the charge memorandum was issued after her retirement, initiation of disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is impermissible. The Respondents submitted that the Applicant, as Chemical Examiner, Grade-II, acted in a reckless and indisciplined manner, failed to obey lawful orders, and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Accordingly, Charge Memorandum No. 04/2024, dated 8-4-2024 was validly issued, containing four articles of charge. Article I related to appointment during 2013–15, including failure to provide complete information and materials to the newly posted Chemical Examiner, Grade-I. Article II concerns unauthorized absence, non-submission of Aadhaar details for biometric attendance and delayed joining after transfer. Article III alleged misconduct leading to appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Article IV pertained to failure to take any action and submission of fabricated or misleading data regarding pending samples to the Director, CRCL, New Delhi. The Respondents further submitted that despite adequate opportunity, the Applicant failed to submit a written statement of defence, leading to appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 13-2-2025. They stated that the GPF has been paid, provisional pension is being granted under Rule 8 (3) of the CCS Pension Rules, 2021 and that gratuity has been rightly withheld under Rule 8 (4)
(c) due to pending disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, the charge memorandum was issued before acceptance of VRS and is therefore not open to challenge at this stage. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that Courts and Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the initial stage. Citing Secretary to Government v. L. Srinivasan [ (1996) 3 SCC 157 ], it was argued that quashing charges on the ground of delay amounts to an excess of judicial review, particularly in cases involving serious misconduct that may take time to detect. Reliance was also placed on Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ (2012) 11 SCC 565 ], Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani [ (2013) 6 SCC 530 ] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, which consistently hold that a charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not infringe any legal right and, therefore, should not be quashed unless it is issued without jurisdiction or is wholly illegal. The correctness or truth of charges, it was emphasized, is within the domain of the disciplinary authority and not for judicial determination at a premature stage. Further, the Respondents submitted that the Charge Memorandum No. 04/2024, dated 8-4-2024 was issued strictly in accordance with due procedure and with the approval of the competent disciplinary authority. The Applicant would be afforded full opportunity to defend herself during the inquiry. On these grounds, the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA as being devoid of merit. The Applicant, in her rejoinder, denied all averments made by the Respondents and reiterated the submissions raised in the Original Application. She further contended that her Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) had already been accepted on or before 1-4-2024, as evident from letter F.No. CNO.670-Adm/Per/196/1566, dated 1-4-2024 (signed on 10-4-2024). This acceptance was communicated by the CBIC to the Joint Director (NFSG), CRCL, New Delhi, who accordingly prepared a letter to GOAW, Ghazipur for her relieving from service. The fact that the relieving letter was made ready on 1-4-2024 clearly indicated that the VRS was processed and accepted prior to that date and was only formally approved on 9-4-2024 with effect from 12-4-2024. Consequently, the Applicant contended that issuance of the charge memorandum, dated 8-4-2024, after the acceptance of her VRS in principle, was mala fide and not in good faith.

IT Rules

Disciplinary proceedings are considered to be initiated when the charge-sheet is issued by the competent authority and received by the delinquent employee. Issue of a charge-memo, under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 after retirement of the employee who is held to have committed more than four years is against Rule 8 (2)
(c)
(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 — The given chunk pertains to an appeal (OA) made by a retired Chemical Examiner, Grade-II against the legality of a charge memorandum issued post-retirement under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Applicant ... — Facts: The Applicant joined Government service on 15-11-1996 as Chemical Assistant, Grade II (Group B, Non-Gazetted) under the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Mumbai, under Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. She was promoted as Chemical Assistant, Grade I in 1999, later selected through UPSC and appointed as Chemical Examiner, Grade II (Group ‘A’) in 2010, and served at Vadodara, Kandla and finally at Government Opium and Alkaloid Works (GOAW), Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant applied for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on 9-1-2024 giving three months’ notice period which was accepted by the competent authority and the Applicant was informed by notification on 9-4-2024 that the President is pleased to accept the notice of the Applicant for Voluntary Retirement under Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 with effect from 12-4-2024 (A/N) and accordingly, she was relieved from her duties at the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Ghazipur on 12-4-2024. The Applicant contended that despite her eligibility, the Respondents unlawfully withheld her pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits for several months, causing mental harassment. She alleged that a charge memorandum, dated 12-4-2024 was issued by the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 13-2-2025, only after her relief on 12-4-2024, making the disciplinary proceedings illegal and mala fide. She further asserted that the date on the charge memorandum appeared to be manipulated to falsely show initiation prior to acceptance of VRS. The Applicant also submitted that she was denied legible copies of relied-upon documents, procedural violations under CCS (CCA) Rules and rules against the process, against her VRS being granted after due vigilance clearance without reference to any pending disciplinary proceedings. She further alleged inordinate delay in assessment of dues, improper handling of gratuity deductions, and failure to process pension benefits within the prescribed time. She appeared to have been fabricated by noting the date as 8-5-2024. Hence the present OA. The Applicant, appearing as party in person, contended that the impugned charge memorandum is illegal and liable to be quashed. She argued that under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after four years of the alleged misconduct. She contended that original records supporting the charge memorandum are unavailable and only photocopies were supplied, rendering it inauthentic. The Applicant also asserted that her VRS was granted after due vigilance clearance, with no pending disciplinary proceedings noted. Since the charge memorandum was issued after her retirement, initiation of disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is impermissible. The Respondents submitted that the Applicant, as Chemical Examiner, Grade-II, acted in a reckless and indisciplined manner, failed to obey lawful orders, and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Accordingly, Charge Memorandum No. 04/2024, dated 8-4-2024 was validly issued, containing four articles of charge. Article I related to appointment during 2013–15, including failure to provide complete information and materials to the newly posted Chemical Examiner, Grade-I. Article II concerns unauthorized absence, non-submission of Aadhaar details for biometric attendance and delayed joining after transfer. Article III alleged misconduct leading to appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Article IV pertained to failure to take any action and submission of fabricated or misleading data regarding pending samples to the Director, CRCL, New Delhi. The Respondents further submitted that despite adequate opportunity, the Applicant failed to submit a written statement of defence, leading to appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 13-2-2025. They stated that the GPF has been paid, provisional pension is being granted under Rule 8 (3) of the CCS Pension Rules, 2021 and that gratuity has been rightly withheld under Rule 8 (4)
(c) due to pending disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, the charge memorandum was issued before acceptance of VRS and is therefore not open to challenge at this stage. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that Courts and Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the initial stage. Citing Secretary to Government v. L. Srinivasan [ (1996) 3 SCC 157 ], it was argued that quashing charges on the ground of delay amounts to an excess of judicial review, particularly in cases involving serious misconduct that may take time to detect. Reliance was also placed on Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ (2012) 11 SCC 565 ], Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani [ (2013) 6 SCC 530 ] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, which consistently hold that a charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not infringe any legal right and, therefore, should not be quashed unless it is issued without jurisdiction or is wholly illegal. The correctness or truth of charges, it was emphasized, is within the domain of the disciplinary authority and not for judicial determination at a premature stage. Further, the Respondents submitted that the Charge Memorandum No. 04/2024, dated 8-4-2024 was issued strictly in accordance with due procedure and with the approval of the competent disciplinary authority. The Applicant would be afforded full opportunity to defend herself during the inquiry. On these grounds, the Respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA as being devoid of merit. The Applicant, in her rejoinder, denied all averments made by the Respondents and reiterated the submissions raised in the Original Application. She further contended that her Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) had already been accepted on or before 1-4-2024, as evident from letter F.No. CNO.670-Adm/Per/196/1566, dated 1-4-2024 (signed on 10-4-2024). This acceptance was communicated by the CBIC to the Joint Director (NFSG), CRCL, New Delhi, who accordingly prepared a letter to GOAW, Ghazipur for her relieving from service. The fact that the relieving letter was made ready on 1-4-2024 clearly indicated that the VRS was processed and accepted prior to that date and was only formally approved on 9-4-2024 with effect from 12-4-2024. Consequently, the Applicant contended that issuance of the charge memorandum, dated 8-4-2024, after the acceptance of her VRS in principle, was mala fide and not in good faith.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text