Disciplinary Authority may initiate fresh proceedings post-voluntary retirement if tenure is validly subsisting under statutory rules.

Following a Supreme Court order dated 09.03.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8255-8257/2009, the applicant was permitted to retire voluntarily effective 31.03.2022

The Supreme Court included a caveat that this retirement would not prejudice pending criminal or disciplinary proceedings, and benefits would be subject to the outcome of such cases

Subsequently, the Andaman Nicobar Administration issued four fresh charge sheets in late March 2022

The applicant challenged these fresh charge sheets and the non-payment of his pensionary benefits, arguing that the Supreme Court only permitted the continuation of existing proceedings, not the initiation of new ones

Despite an interim order by the Tribunal (upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court) to pay provisional pension, the respondents failed to comply

1. Whether fresh disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the applicant after the Supreme Court's order dated 09.03.2022

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the payment of provisional pension and other retiral benefits despite the pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings

CCS (CCA) Rules, which empower the administration to initiate disciplinary proceedings during the service period of an employee

Rule 8(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (and corresponding provisions in the older rules), which mandates the payment of provisional pension to a retired government servant when departmental or judicial proceedings are pending

The principle of judicial discipline, noting that the Supreme Court’s order dated 09.03.2022 did not explicitly bar new proceedings nor override statutory pension rules

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant was technically in service until 31.03.2022, the respondents were within their legal rights under CCS (CCA) Rules to issue charge memoranda on 24.03.2022, 27.03.2022, and 30.03.2022

The Supreme Court’s silence on "future" proceedings did not equate to a prohibition

Regarding pension, the Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that "court-directed retirement" exempts them from standard rules

It held that while final gratuity and regular pension can be withheld under the CCS (Pension) Rules pending the outcome of proceedings, the provision for provisional pension is a statutory obligation, not a discretionary power

The Tribunal condemned the respondents' continued non-compliance with prior judicial directions to pay the provisional pension as a "matter of grave concern"

It held that the applicant is entitled to provisional pension under statutory rules

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to: (1) Conclude all disciplinary proceedings within six months [p. 18 / para 15.1]; and (2) Pay all admissible dues, including provisional pension, within 90 days as per the statutory Rules

The O.A. was disposed of with no costs