Retiral dues cannot be withheld without initiating formal disciplinary proceedings within the statutory limitation period.

The petitioner was a member of the Palika Non-Centralised Services at Nagar Palika Parishad Khatima and retired while officiating as an Executive Officer on 31.05.2019

Following her retirement, the respondents released only 50% of her gratuity, withholding the remainder based on a government report alleging that she unauthorizedly engaged 166 Paryavaran Mitras and made excess wage payments

The petitioner contended that no charge-sheet or show-cause notice was ever issued and that the appointments were actually made by the Mohalla Swachhata Samiti

As of the date of the hearing, more than seven years had passed since her retirement without the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings

1. Whether the respondents can legally withhold the retiral benefits of a retired employee in the absence of a formal disciplinary or judicial proceeding

2. Whether a disciplinary enquiry can be initiated against the petitioner after the lapse of the four-year limitation period prescribed under the Civil Service Regulations

Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, which empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension/gratuity only if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss in a departmental or judicial proceeding

The regulation stipulates a strict limitation period, stating that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty, shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceedings

The Court observed that since the petitioner retired on 31.05.2019, more than seven years had elapsed without any disciplinary inquiry being initiated. Under Regulation 351-A, the state's right to initiate such inquiries for the purpose of recovery or withholding dues is barred after four years from retirement

The Court found that despite the allegations regarding the engagement of Paryavaran Mitras, the respondents failed to produce any appointment letters issued by the petitioner or record any evidence of a formal charge-sheet. Consequently, because no departmental proceedings were deemed to have been instituted as per the explanation in Regulation 351-A (which requires the framing of charges), there was no legal justification for the continued withholding of the petitioner's statutory dues

The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned orders withholding the dues. The respondents were directed to release the remaining amount of gratuity and all other pending dues to the petitioner within four weeks from the presentation of the certified order