Departmental proceedings may continue after retirement and concurrently with pending criminal prosecution.

The applicant, an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade-I, retired on superannuation on 31.03.2017.

Shri N.K. Rath alleged that he had advanced ₹9.5 lakh to the applicant, who issued a cheque dated 30.04.2017 for repayment; the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

Rath complained to the Intelligence Bureau and requested action against the applicant and withholding of his retirement benefits.

The applicant disputed the allegations, asserting that the cheque related to a proposed land transaction that was subsequently abandoned and that he had initiated criminal proceedings against Rath.

With the President’s sanction dated 31.01.2018, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, read with Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging grave misconduct and violation of Rules 3 and 18 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The applicant challenged the proceedings, principally contending that they could not be continued after retirement and should alternatively be stayed until disposal of the related criminal proceedings.

He also sought to amend the O.A. to challenge an order dated 18.01.2022, but the amendment application was filed after an unexplained delay of approximately three years.

1. Whether departmental proceedings could validly be instituted against the applicant after his retirement under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, pursuant to the President’s sanction.

2. Whether the departmental proceedings were required to be stayed because criminal proceedings concerning the same transaction were pending.

3. Whether the applicant’s belated application to amend the O.A. to challenge the order dated 18.01.2022 ought to be allowed.

Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reserves to the President the power to withhold or withdraw pension, or order recovery of pecuniary loss, where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence committed during service.

Departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct fields and may ordinarily proceed simultaneously because criminal proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas disciplinary findings may be based on the preponderance of probabilities.

Relying on Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, the Tribunal reiterated that acquittal or pendency of criminal proceedings does not, by itself, bar departmental action.

Relying on Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA, (2007) 10 SCC 385, and Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699, it held that a stay is not automatic and may be justified only where the criminal charge is grave, involves complicated questions of fact and law, and continuation of the departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the employee’s defence.

The Tribunal held that the alleged misconduct related to financial dealings and conduct during the applicant’s service, and that the President had expressly sanctioned initiation of proceedings under Rule 9 on 31.01.2018.

Consequently, the applicant’s retirement did not immunise him from disciplinary proceedings having pensionary consequences.

The pendency of criminal proceedings arising from the dishonoured cheque did not warrant a stay because the departmental inquiry and criminal case served different purposes and were governed by different standards of proof; the applicant failed to establish that disclosure of his defence in the inquiry would seriously prejudice his criminal defence.

The Tribunal also declined to entertain the belated amendment application, noting that the applicant had waited nearly three years after receiving the order dated 18.01.2022 before seeking to challenge it.

It held that the respondents were legally entitled to initiate and continue departmental proceedings against the retired applicant under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and that the proceedings need not be kept in abeyance merely because related criminal proceedings were pending.

The O.A. was dismissed as devoid of merit; the pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.