9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority to take disciplinary action against the appellant after retirement. 2. Whether there is evidence on which a court can conclude that the charges against the appellant were established. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the Authority to Take Disciplinary Action After Retirement: The appellant, a Magistrate, gave notice of his intention to retire on reaching the age of 55 years on 3rd December 1973. Before this date, on 23rd November 1973, a show-cause notice was issued to him, and he submitted his explanation on 26th November 1973. The High Court issued a suspension order on 11th December 1973. Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules was central to this issue. Rule 161(2)(ii) allows a government servant to retire by giving three months' notice after attaining the age of 55 years. However, the proviso to this rule allows the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire if the government servant is under suspension or if departmental proceedings are pending or contemplated. The Court held that the proviso requires a positive action by the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire, which must be communicated to the government servant. Since no such communication was made before the appellant's retirement date, the Court concluded that the appellant had effectively retired, and the appointing authority had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary proceedings against him post-retirement. 2. Evidence on Charges Against the Appellant: The Inquiry Officer found that the charges were not established as the witnesses who made allegations did not appear. However, the High Court, on the administrative side, disagreed, citing delays in the appellant's pronouncement of judgments in three criminal cases. The High Court held that there was evidence on which a reasonable inference of guilt could be drawn and thus did not interfere with the dismissal order. However, since the Court concluded that disciplinary action could not be taken after retirement, it refrained from expressing any opinion on the correctness of the High Court's decision regarding the evidence. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order and the judgment of the High Court were set aside. There was no order as to costs.
|
