Post-Retirement Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated Without Governor's Sanction and Beyond Four Years of Alleged Misconduct Are Coram Non Judice.

The petitioner, a Surveyor, retired from service on February 28, 2014

On August 10, 2016—over two years after his retirement—the respondents served a charge-sheet alleging improper valuation of a pond in March 2012 and failure to maintain work registers

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order on July 28, 2018, withholding 25% of the petitioner’s pension for three years

The petitioner challenged this order primarily on the grounds that the inquiry was initiated without the Governor's sanction and concerned events occurring more than four years prior to the institution of proceedings

1. Whether the impugned order was a non-speaking and unreasoned order in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the departmental proceedings were vitiated for lack of prior sanction from the Governor under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

3. Whether the proceedings were barred by the limitation of four years as prescribed under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules, 1976

Rule 9(2)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which mandates that proceedings against a retired employee shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor and shall not relate to an event taking place more than four years before such institution

Article 166 of the Constitution regarding the expression of executive action in the name of the Governor

Kranti Associates Pvt. Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), which established that quasi-judicial authorities must record clear, cogent, and succinct reasons to ensure transparency and accountability

The Court observed that the Disciplinary Authority failed to pass a speaking order, as it did not objectively consider the petitioner’s explanation or record justifiable reasons for its conclusion

Regarding the statutory bar, the Court found that since the petitioner was an "outsider" post-retirement, the requirement for the Governor’s sanction under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) was mandatory and had not been obtained

Furthermore, the alleged misconduct occurred on March 19, 2012, while the charge-sheet was issued on August 10, 2016; this exceeded the four-year limitation period prescribed by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii), rendering the initiation of the inquiry legally unsustainable

The Court noted that the State provided no evidence of prior approval or adherence to these statutory safeguards

It held that the departmental inquiry was unauthorized due to the absence of the Governor’s sanction and the expiration of the four-year limitation period

The respondents were directed to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months, failing which an interest of 6% per annum would be applicable from the date of entitlement until actual payment