Disciplinary proceedings against retired teachers must be instituted within three years of retirement.

The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 3 September 1981 and was appointed and approved as Headmaster with effect from 15 May 1996. He retired on attaining superannuation on 30 April 2019 and was issued a “No Liability Certificate” by the school.

Allegations were subsequently made that he had failed to properly hand over school records, registers, cash books and financial documents to his successor, who allegedly assumed charge on 4 June 2019 and received formal handover on 26 June 2019.

An enquiry committee constituted pursuant to an order of the Additional District Magistrate submitted a report alleging financial irregularities and non-production of important records during the petitioner’s tenure.

Pursuant to an earlier order of the Court, an independent audit was conducted. The audit noted missing cash-book entries, pencil-written accounts, and non-availability of financial documents for several periods, but also recorded that the petitioner had not withdrawn the 2019 Additional Class Room Grant and that later expenditure had been incurred by the teacher-in-charge with supporting entries and vouchers.

The Commissioner of School Education, by order dated 4 April 2023, directed the school President to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner, forward his reply to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, and initiate disciplinary proceedings if the explanation was unsatisfactory, subject to approval of the State Government.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died on 25 October 2023, and his legal heir was substituted in the proceedings. No disciplinary proceeding had been formally instituted against the petitioner before his death.

Whether Rule 5(3), second proviso, of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 mandatorily required any disciplinary proceeding against the retired petitioner to be instituted within three years from the date of his retirement, where the alleged misconduct became known after retirement?

Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 4 April 2023, which contemplated initiation of disciplinary proceedings after expiry of the prescribed period, was legally sustainable?

Whether the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits could be withheld merely on the basis of allegations, enquiry materials and audit observations, without a duly instituted disciplinary proceeding and a finding of proved misconduct?

The Court applied Rule 5(1)–(3) of the 2018 Rules, under which a preliminary investigation may be authorised upon a complaint, a show-cause notice may follow a prima facie finding of misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings may be initiated if the explanation is unsatisfactory.

The second proviso to Rule 5(3) specifically provides that, in the case of retired teaching or non-teaching staff, disciplinary proceedings may be instituted, with the approval of the State Government, within three years from the date of retirement if the misconduct became known to the Board after retirement.

The Court also considered Scheme 19(4) and 19(5) of the 1981 Pension Scheme: a charge of corruption must be proved before adverse pensionary consequences follow, while final pension and gratuity may be withheld during duly instituted or continued departmental or judicial proceedings, subject to payment of provisional pension.

The governing principles were that pension is a statutory entitlement rather than a bounty; an allegation cannot be treated as proof of misconduct; and statutory disciplinary jurisdiction must be exercised strictly within the prescribed time and conditions.

The petitioner retired on 30 April 2019, whereas the impugned order was passed on 4 April 2023, beyond the three-year period prescribed by Rule 5(3), second proviso.

The Court held that the time limit was mandatory and constituted a substantive restriction on the authority’s jurisdiction, particularly because indefinite uncertainty regarding pensionary benefits could not be imposed on a retired employee.

Although the enquiry committee and auditor identified irregularities in the school’s accounts during the petitioner’s tenure, those materials did not establish his personal involvement in corruption, defalcation or mismanagement.

The Court emphasised that such involvement remained a matter requiring proof in a duly constituted disciplinary proceeding.

Since no disciplinary proceeding had been instituted and the petitioner had died during the writ proceedings, no further disciplinary action could be undertaken.

Accordingly, Scheme 19(4) and 19(5) could not justify withholding pension or gratuity merely on the basis of unproven allegations.

The order was therefore declared illegal and set aside.

The respondents were directed to transmit and process the petitioner’s pension papers, issue the Pension Payment Order in favour of his legal heirs, and release arrear pension within eight weeks of communication of the judgment.

The authorities were also directed to consider the widow’s claim for family pension in accordance with law.

The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.