Departmental proceedings are instituted upon issuance of charges, not their subsequent service.

The applicant, an Assistant Commissioner due to superannuate on 30 April 2017, was relieved on 28 April because the intervening days were a weekend.

The respondents dated a charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, 28 April 2017; it was delivered to him on 1 May 2017, after his retirement.

He also alleged that the memorandum had actually been prepared on 29 April, but provided no supporting evidence.

The Tribunal considered only the validity of the charge memorandum, not the merits of the charges.

1. Whether disciplinary proceedings were instituted while the applicant was still in service, notwithstanding that the charge memorandum was delivered to him after retirement.

2. Whether the charge memorandum was invalid because it was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, rather than under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Rule 14(4)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 requires the disciplinary authority to deliver or cause to be delivered the articles of charge and supporting particulars to the government servant.

Under Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, departmental proceedings instituted while an employee is in service are, after retirement, deemed to be proceedings under that rule and may be continued and concluded by the authority that commenced them.

Rule 9(6)(a) provides that departmental proceedings are deemed instituted on the date the statement of charges is issued, or, where the employee was earlier suspended, on the date of suspension.

In Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana, (1993) 3 SCC 196, the Supreme Court held that delayed service of a charge-sheet does not postpone the initiation of proceedings where the charge-sheet was framed and issued earlier.

The Tribunal treated the date of issuance—not the later date of delivery—as decisive for determining when proceedings were instituted.

It found that the charge memorandum was issued on 28 April 2017, when the applicant was still in service; its delivery on 1 May did not defer institution of the proceedings.

Accordingly, Rule 9(2)(a) applied after retirement, permitting the proceedings to continue as pension proceedings.

The applicant’s allegation that the memorandum was actually prepared on 29 April was unsupported, and the Tribunal also noted that date was a Saturday.

The Tribunal’s review at the charge-sheet stage was limited to this validity question.

Finding no infirmity in the charge-sheet dated 28 April 2017, it dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit and closed any pending miscellaneous applications.