Deliberate evasion of personal service does not invalidate a charge memo issued prior to superannuation.

The Petitioner, a 1982-batch IAS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, was set to retire on superannuation on 31.08.2015

A charge memo dated 26.08.2015 was issued against him concerning allegations of money laundering and financial irregularities during his tenure as Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust between 2005 and 2009

On 31.08.2015, the Petitioner submitted a charge-handover form at 2:15 PM and left the office

The authorities attempted personal service of the charge memo at 3:15 PM; however, due to the Petitioner’s absence, the memo was affixed (pasted) at his official residence in the presence of revenue officials, a process that was photographed and videographed

Furthermore, the memo had been sent via email on 26.08.2015 and by registered post, which was returned with the endorsement "refused"

The Petitioner challenged the validity of the service and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai, which dismissed his applications. He subsequently filed these Writ Petitions

Rule 8(5) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which stipulates that the disciplinary authority "shall deliver or cause to be delivered" a copy of the articles of charge to the member of the service

The Petitioner relied on the principle established in Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (preventive), Jamnagar (2015) 11 SCC 628, which mandates that if the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all

The court applied the service principle that retirement is effective only from the closing time of the office on the date of superannuation

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that he retired at 2:15 PM, holding that a public servant cannot unilaterally determine their retirement time mid-afternoon to evade disciplinary actions; they remain a public servant until the official closing hours of the day

The Court scrutinized the Petitioner's conduct, describing his early departure as a "surreptitious" and "oblique" attempt to avoid personal service of the charge memo

Regarding Rule 8(5), the Court found that the respondents had made exhaustive efforts to effect delivery, including digital service via email (which the Petitioner did not specifically deny) and physical affixation at his residence supported by a panchanama

The Court emphasized that the "refused" endorsement on the registered post strongly indicated a deliberate avoidance of service

It concluded that the Petitioner, having "escaped from the office more like a fugitive," could not seek legal indulgence based on a technical plea of non-delivery when his own conduct frustrated personal service

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and confirmed the order of the CAT

The Court directed the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry immediately and ordered the Petitioner to face the proceedings

No costs were awarded