2016 (2) TMI 549 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of issuance of notice in the late night on the date of retirement - Additional Commissioner of Central Excise at Mysore - during night of 31.03.203, a Memorandum dated 31.03.2013 along with certain Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputations of Misconduct and Misbehavior were served on the respondent - learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-Union of India. contends that the respondent is deemed to have been in duty till the midnight of 31.03.2013 and therefore, the department was justified in serving Articles of Charge in between 10.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. on 31.03.2013 and consequently, the same is deemed to be issued while the respondent was in service. Held that - The respondent was not supposed to perform his duties as an Additional Commissioner any more till midnight, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After relieving from his duties, the respondent will not continue as a Government Servant . If it is so, it is clear that the Articles of Charge etc., were not served on the Government Servant. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the Articles of Charge were served on the respondent only after he was relieved from the duties.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of serving Articles of Charge after retirement.
2. Interpretation of rules regarding serving charges to a Government Servant.
3. Requirement of President's sanction for initiating departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding the service of Articles of Charge to a retired Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. The respondent retired on 31.03.2013, and the Articles of Charge were served on the same day after his retirement. The petitioner contended that the respondent was deemed to be in duty till midnight, justifying the late service of charges. However, the court referred to Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,1965, emphasizing that charges can only be served on a "Government Servant" and not after retirement. The court noted the Relief Report confirming the respondent's relief from duties in the afternoon and concluded that serving charges after relief from duty is not valid.

Regarding the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant, Rule 9 of Central Civil (Pension) Rules, 1972 was cited. The rule mandates that proceedings should be initiated while the individual is in service, with exceptions under Rule 9(2)(b) requiring the President's sanction for retired officials. In this case, the court found that no such sanction was obtained before initiating action against the respondent post-retirement. Consequently, the court upheld the CAT's decision, stating that the charges were served after the respondent was relieved from duties, rendering them invalid. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order.