Departmental proceedings lapse upon superannuation absent a specific enabling provision in service rules.

The petitioner, a Divisional Manager employed by the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, was served with a charge-sheet on 24 July 2019.

He attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31 July 2019.

He thereafter filed the present writ petition on 5 August 2019, contending that the Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Employees Service Regulation, 1984 did not authorise continuation of departmental proceedings after retirement.

The High Court stayed the operation of the charge-sheet on 13 August 2019 and subsequently directed the parties to disclose whether the applicable rules permitted continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation.

In its affidavit, the Nigam failed to identify any such enabling provision and relied only on the definition of “employee” under Rule 136.

Whether the respondent-Nigam could continue departmental proceedings against the petitioner after his superannuation in the absence of an express provision in the applicable service regulations?

Whether the charge-sheet dated 24 July 2019 and the consequential departmental proceedings were liable to be quashed upon the petitioner’s retirement on 31 July 2019?

The Court applied the principle that disciplinary proceedings against an employee after cessation of service can continue only where the applicable statute, service rules, or regulations contain a specific enabling provision.

Relying on S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta, (1997) 8 SCC 60, and Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., (1999) 3 SCC 666, the Court held that, absent such authority, continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement is impermissible and retiral benefits cannot be reduced on that basis.

The same principle was reaffirmed in State of U.P. v. Harihar Bholenath, (2006) 13 SCC 460, Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd. v. K. Satyanarayana Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 322, Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, (2014) 7 SCC 260, and Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, (2026) 3 SCC 252.

The Court further recognised that disciplinary proceedings are treated as instituted upon issuance of the charge-sheet, but their continuation after retirement still depends upon a specific rule authorising it.

The petitioner’s service was governed by the 1984 Regulations, which contained no express provision permitting continuation of a departmental enquiry after superannuation.

Although the charge-sheet had been issued before the petitioner retired, the Nigam could not continue the proceedings after 31 July 2019 merely because the alleged misconduct related to his period of service.

The respondents’ affidavit did not identify any enabling rule; reliance on Rule 136, which merely defined “employee,” was insufficient to confer post-retirement disciplinary jurisdiction.

Applying the Supreme Court’s consistent rule that such jurisdiction must arise from a specific statutory or regulatory provision, the Court concluded that the proceedings had lapsed upon retirement.

The charge-sheet dated 24 July 2019 and the consequential disciplinary proceedings were accordingly quashed.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.