Disciplinary proceedings against a retired officer for grave misconduct are valid if initiated within four years.

The applicant, an IPS officer (batch of 1982), was sent on foreign deputation to the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone in 2000

His deputation was extended periodically by the State Government until July 31, 2009

After the expiry of this period, the applicant failed to report for duty and remained absent for nearly six years, eventually reporting back to the Rajasthan cadre on July 2, 2015

He superannuated on July 31, 2015

Following a preliminary inquiry, the respondents issued a major penalty charge-sheet dated March 3, 2017, under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, for unauthorized overstay

The applicant challenged this charge-sheet, claiming it was barred by limitation and lacked the prerequisite of "pecuniary loss" required for proceedings against retirees

1. Whether a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a retired member of the All India Services under Rule 6 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, in the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the government.

2. Whether the charge-sheet was time-barred under the four-year limitation period prescribed by Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958.

Rule 6(1) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, which empowers the Central Government to withhold pension or gratuity if a pensioner is found guilty of "grave misconduct" or having caused "pecuniary loss"

Rule 6(1)(b), which mandates that proceedings not instituted while in service require the sanction of the Central Government and must relate to an event occurring not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings

Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, regarding the procedure for imposing major penalties

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's interpretation of Rule 6(1) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958, clarifying that the rule uses the disjunctive "or," meaning proceedings can be initiated for either "grave misconduct" or "pecuniary loss"; they do not need to coexist

The unauthorized overstay of approximately six years on a foreign assignment was deemed to constitute "grave misconduct"

Regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal noted that while the overstay began in 2009, it was a continuous misconduct that only ceased when the applicant reported back for duty on July 2, 2015

Since the charge-sheet was issued on March 3, 2017—less than two years after the conclusion of the misconduct—it fell well within the four-year statutory limit

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant, as a senior officer, could not plead ignorance of the requirement for valid extensions for foreign tours of duty

The Original Application was dismissed, but directed that the provisional pension currently being paid to the applicant must continue until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, after which the competent authority shall decide on terminal benefits as per law