Court’s Decision:
The Gauhati High Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, directing the railway authorities to release the retirement benefits of a retired railway employee without any further deductions. The court found that the de novo inquiry conducted against the respondent was not permissible under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as it was initiated post his retirement. The disciplinary proceedings had already concluded, and no fresh charges were instituted before his superannuation.
Facts:
The respondent was charged under a memorandum dated July 8, 2008, for allegedly not maintaining stores properly, leading to a deficiency of materials worth Rs. 2.04 crores. An inquiry report dated January 17, 2009, concluded that the respondent was guilty, and the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction in rank from Grade II to Grade III without restoration to the original grade.
The appellate authority subsequently modified the penalty, allowing the respondent to restore his grade after five years. Despite the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the railway authorities attempted to recover Rs. 2.04 crores by deducting a monthly amount from the respondent’s salary. This led to the respondent filing a petition before the CAT, Guwahati Bench, challenging the recovery notices.
Issues:
- Whether the railway authorities could institute a de novo inquiry against the respondent after his retirement.
- Whether the recovery of Rs. 2.04 crores from the respondent’s retirement dues was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that since the inquiry found the respondent guilty of misconduct, the loss suffered by the railways must be recovered from his salary or pensionary benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent contended that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority had already attained finality, and no fresh charge sheet was issued. Further, since the appellate authority did not order any recovery, any subsequent attempt to recover amounts from his retirement benefits was illegal.
Analysis of the Law:
The court relied on Rule 9(2)(b) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which bars fresh inquiries against retired officials unless sanctioned by the President and only for misconduct occurring within four years prior to the institution of the inquiry. It noted that since the respondent retired on December 31, 2015, and no fresh charge was issued, the de novo inquiry and consequent recovery orders were invalid.
Precedent Analysis:
The court observed that where disciplinary proceedings are concluded, and the penalty imposed attains finality, no subsequent recovery can be made without explicit sanction and adherence to the procedural requirements under the applicable pension rules.
Court’s Reasoning:
The High Court held that since the penalty imposed on the respondent was never challenged, it had attained finality. The subsequent de novo inquiry conducted by a three-member committee was without any legal basis, as it was not preceded by a fresh charge sheet or sanction by the President. Additionally, the alleged loss occurred before the stipulated four-year period under the pension rules, making the de novo inquiry and recovery orders unsustainable.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the railway authorities and directed that the respondent’s retirement benefits be released immediately, including the refund of any amount already deducted.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that once disciplinary proceedings are concluded, the penalty cannot be reopened without following the due process under pension rules. It underscores the protection provided to retired employees against arbitrary recoveries based on stale charges.
