Strict adherence to prescribed formats and identification of disciplinary authority is mandatory for instituting post-retirement departmental proceedings.

The applicant joined the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) as an Assistant Engineer in 1985 and retired as Additional Director General (Electrical) on September 30, 2020.

On August 24, 2024, nearly four years post-retirement, the respondents issued a presidential sanction and a memorandum of charges against him for alleged irregularities in approving work orders during 2018-2020.

The applicant challenged these orders, contending that the sanction and memorandum failed to specify the identity of the disciplinary authority and the place of inquiry as strictly required by the statutory formats prescribed under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.

1. Whether the departmental proceedings and memorandum of charges issued post-retirement are legally sustainable if they deviate from the mandatory statutory formats (Format 2 and Format 3) prescribed under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021?

2. Whether the failure to name the specific authority to conduct the proceedings and the place of inquiry in the presidential sanction vitiates the institution of the disciplinary action?

The court primarily applied Rule 8(2)(c)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which mandates that departmental proceedings against a retired government servant must be instituted only with Presidential sanction in 'Format 2' and communicated in 'Format 3'.

The Tribunal relied on the principle established in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that way or not at all.

The Tribunal cited Sunny Abraham v. Union of India (2021) and Dr. Sunirmal Sarkar v. Union of India (2023) regarding the mandatory nature of statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal observed that Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, provides a specific statutory mechanism for initiating proceedings against pensioners to ensure procedural safeguards.

Upon comparing the impugned memorandum and sanction with 'Format 2' and 'Format 3' of the Rules, the Tribunal found that the respondents had left the fields for the specific disciplinary authority and the place of inquiry blank or vague.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that reference to Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was sufficient compliance, holding that once a statute (CCS Pension Rules) prescribes a particular format for a retired employee, strict adherence is a jurisdictional necessity.

The failure to disclose the identity of the conducting authority was deemed a violation of the statutory mandate, rendering the initiation of proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal quashed the Presidential sanction dated August 24, 2024, and the Memorandum of Charge of the same date; it further directed the respondents to provide all consequential benefits to the applicant within eight weeks while granting liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly following the rules.