Retiral benefits cannot be withheld for disciplinary proceedings barred by post-retirement limitation.

Arun Jadhav, a former Superintending Engineer in the Lakshadweep Public Works Department, retired on 31 July 2024.

A proposed disciplinary action concerned alleged misconduct during 26 October 2010 to 30 March 2013. Although the Administrator had directed initiation of proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in January 2019, no charge memorandum was issued.

Jadhav received a show-cause notice in December 2020 and submitted explanations, but after retirement was granted only provisional pension; his other retirement benefits were withheld.

He applied to the Tribunal for release of his full pension and other terminal benefits, with interest.

1. Whether the respondents could withhold Jadhav’s full pension and other retirement benefits when no disciplinary proceedings had been formally instituted against him.

2. Whether disciplinary proceedings could be instituted after retirement for alleged events occurring more than four years earlier, absent the required Presidential sanction.

Rule 8(2)(c) of the CCS (CCA) (Pension) Rules, 2021, as quoted in the order, provides that departmental proceedings not instituted while the government servant was in service may be instituted only with the President’s sanction and must not concern an event that occurred more than four years before institution.

The Tribunal also referred to the explanation to Rule 8(8), under which a proceeding is not deemed instituted unless a charge is framed.

The applicant relied on D. Mohammed Manikfan v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Others, OP(CAT) No. 289/2019, Kerala High Court, judgment dated 4 December 2019; the order records that reliance but does not set out the precedent’s rule.

The Tribunal treated the 2019 direction to initiate proceedings and the subsequent show-cause notice as insufficient to establish that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted, noting that no charge memorandum had been issued.

Because the alleged events dated from 2010–2013, any post-retirement institution of proceedings was barred by the four-year limit; the required Presidential sanction had also neither been sought nor obtained.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that no disciplinary or judicial proceeding remained pending and that there was no legal impediment to release of the withheld benefits.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to release Jadhav’s entire retirement benefits within 60 days of receiving the order. Any delay beyond that period would attract interest at 8% per annum. No costs were ordered.