Distinct supplementary charges issued after retirement constitute fresh proceedings subject to the four-year limitation bar.

The respondent, formerly Director (Projects) of NBCC India Ltd., retired on 31 May 2021. Before his retirement, NBCC instituted disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of the NBCC (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1993, by charge-sheet dated 26 April 2021. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 22 April 2022.

Thereafter, on 26 September 2022, NBCC issued a supplementary charge-sheet concerning distinct alleged lapses relating to the NBCC Green View project, including failure to address technical-audit findings and failure to take action against contractors.

On 6 January 2023, the Disciplinary Authority directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct a consolidated inquiry “from the scratch” into both charge-sheets, stating that further investigation had revealed additional lapses.

The respondent challenged the original charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet and order dated 6 January 2023 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Relying on its earlier decision in Rajendra Chaudhari v. Union of India, the Tribunal quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings, while granting liberty to NBCC to act in accordance with law.

1. Whether the supplementary charge-sheet dated 26 September 2022, issued after the respondent’s retirement and concerning distinct alleged lapses, could be treated as a continuation of the 2021 charge-sheet for purposes of Rule 8(20)(1)(b)(2) of the 1993 Rules.

2. Whether the supplementary charge-sheet was barred by the four-year limitation prescribed under Rule 8(20)(1)(b)(2), thereby invalidating the proposed consolidated inquiry.

3. Whether the original charge-sheet dated 26 April 2021 and the inquiry report submitted pursuant to it were liable to be quashed along with the supplementary proceedings.

The Court applied Rule 8(20)(1) of the NBCC (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1993, under which disciplinary proceedings instituted during an employee’s service may continue after retirement, while proceedings instituted after retirement cannot relate to an event occurring beyond the prescribed four-year period under Rule 8(20)(1)(b)(2).

The Court also applied Rules 8 and 9 concerning the conduct of disciplinary inquiries and the Disciplinary Authority’s consideration of the Inquiry Officer’s report.

It held that a charge-sheet containing distinct allegations cannot be retrospectively treated as having been instituted on the date of an earlier charge-sheet merely because it is styled “supplementary”.

The Court distinguished Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 90, because that case did not involve a comparable four-year limitation, and State of Punjab v. Chander Mohan, (2005) 13 SCC 81, because it concerned a fresh inquiry on an existing charge-sheet rather than issuance of a supplementary or fresh charge-sheet.

The Court found that the 2021 charge-sheet had been issued before the respondent’s retirement and was therefore not subject to the post-retirement four-year restriction.

However, the 2022 charge-sheet was issued after retirement and concerned allegations distinct from those in the original charge-sheet. Consequently, its institution could not be backdated to April 2021 merely by describing it as supplementary; accepting such an argument would enable NBCC to circumvent the statutory limitation by adding fresh charges after retirement.

Since the alleged events underlying the 2022 charges occurred between 2014 and 2018, the post-retirement charge-sheet was barred under Rule 8(20)(1)(b)(2) and was void from the outset. The order dated 6 January 2023 directing a consolidated inquiry therefore could not stand.

The Court nevertheless held that the Tribunal erred in quashing the 2021 charge-sheet wholesale. That charge-sheet was validly instituted during the respondent’s service. Further, the Disciplinary Authority had rejected or declined to act upon the Inquiry Officer’s report only because of the proposed supplementary proceedings; once those proceedings were held invalid, the matter had to be reconsidered in accordance with Rules 8 and 9.

The Court modified the Tribunal’s order by restoring the original charge-sheet dated 26 April 2021 and directing the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the Inquiry Officer’s report concerning that charge-sheet and proceed thereafter in accordance with Rules 8 and 9 of the 1993 Rules and other applicable law.

The entire disciplinary proceedings were therefore not quashed; only the post-retirement supplementary proceedings were held unsustainable.