Reviewing Authority Cannot Revise Disciplinary Order Against Retired Employee Except President.

Departmental proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, were initiated against the applicant, Pritam Chand, a retired Sorting Assistant from the Postal Department, for allegedly dispatching EMS bags containing international speed post articles without customs examination on March 22, 2014.

The Inquiry Officer partially proved the allegations, and the Disciplinary Authority inflicted a penalty of censure on December 5, 2016, which attained finality as the applicant did not appeal.

The applicant retired on superannuation on December 31, 2016.

Subsequently, the appellate authority (CPMG) reviewed the case under Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and set aside the Disciplinary Authority's order on March 28, 2017, ordering de novo proceedings from the stage of re-submission of the Inquiry Report.

The Inquiry Officer submitted a new report on September 25, 2017, and the applicant submitted a representation on November 2, 2017.

The matter was referred to the UPSC, which pointed out deficiencies.

The Appellate Authority again ordered de novo proceedings from the stage of supplying a copy of the PO's brief to the charged officer, leading the applicant to approach the Tribunal.

Whether the appellate authority had the competence to review/revise the final order of the disciplinary authority and order de novo proceedings against the applicant after his retirement, given that the disciplinary proceedings had culminated in a final order and the applicant had retired on superannuation.

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which reserves to the President the right to withhold or withdraw pension, or both, in cases of grave misconduct or negligence during service if a pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings.

It also noted that departmental proceedings instituted while a government servant was in service are deemed to be proceedings under this rule and are continued and concluded by the authority which commenced them, but with a proviso that if instituted by a subordinate authority, findings must be reported to the President.

The Tribunal also considered Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which allows the appellate authority to revise an order within six months.

The Tribunal also considered Rule 136 of the Postal Manual Volume III, which states that disciplinary proceedings initiated while an officer was in service should be deemed proceedings under Article 351-A of CSRs after retirement and concluded under that rule, with the final decision made by the Government in the name of the President after consulting the UPSC.

The case of Shri Sri Pal Jain Versus Union of India and Ors. in O.A. No. 685/2011 was relied upon, which held that once an employee retires, no penalty other than under the Pension Rules can be imposed, and the six-month time limit in Rule 29 includes passing the revision order.

The Tribunal found that after the applicant's retirement on December 31, 2016, any penalty could only be related to withholding pension partly or fully, and the competent authority for inflicting such a penalty is the President of India, not any other authority.

Although the CPMG was the appellate authority while the applicant was in service, Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly vests the right to withhold or withdraw pension in the President upon retirement.

The Tribunal noted that while Rule 29(1)(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules allows the appellate authority to invoke jurisdiction, this would only be justified had the applicant not retired.

Similarly, Rule 136 of the Postal Manual Volume III specifies that for disciplinary proceedings continued after retirement, the ultimate decision on taking action under Article 351-A of CSRs is taken by the Government in the name of the President, after consultation with the UPSC.

The Tribunal expressly relied on Shri Sri Pal Jain, which held that the six-month period for revision under Rule 29 includes the passing of the order and that no penalty other than under pension rules can be imposed after retirement.

Therefore, the actions of the appellate authority in ordering de novo proceedings after the applicant's retirement and after the original proceedings had culminated were deemed improper and illegal in light of the competent authority transferring to the President for pension-related penalties.

Finding no justification for a divergent view, the O.A. was allowed.

The impugned orders dated March 28, 2017, and September 15, 2021, were quashed and set aside.

The applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits, including withheld retiral benefits, if any, along with interest thereon at the rate admissible on GPF deposits.

These directions were to be complied with within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.