9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the employer could continue with the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated prior to the retirement of the government servant by virtue of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971? 2. Whether the delay in completing the domestic enquiry proceedings would be fatal to the proceedings? Summary: Issue 1: Continuation of Departmental Enquiry Post-Retirement The Supreme Court examined Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which allows the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceeding. The proviso to this rule states that departmental proceedings instituted while the officer was in service shall continue even after the officer's retirement. This rule was upheld in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Others, where the Court recognized the authority of the State to withhold or reduce pension based on departmental proceedings initiated during the officer's service. In the present case, since the departmental enquiry was initiated while the respondent was in service, the employer is permitted to continue with the enquiry proceedings post-retirement. Issue 2: Delay in Completing Enquiry Proceedings The Court held that delay in concluding domestic enquiry proceedings is not inherently fatal. The impact of the delay depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the delay is unexplained and protracted, it may prevent the employer from continuing the proceedings. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the proceedings should be allowed to continue. The Court referred to the case of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey, which highlighted that non-cooperation and procrastination by the employee could justify the delay. In the present case, the Administrative Tribunal found that the delay was due to the respondent leaving the headquarters without permission, which justified the continuation of the proceedings. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The disciplinary authority was directed to complete the domestic enquiry proceedings within three months, and the respondent was instructed to participate without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
