Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Retired Municipal Employee Challenging Departmental Inquiry Initiated After Retirement. No Rule Permits Inquiry Against Ex-Employee Under Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Shankar Shivling Swami, was employed as a cashier in the Municipal Council, Beed. He was suspended on 16 January 1991 on a charge of misappropriation. However, no departmental inquiry was initiated against him immediately. Criminal cases (R.C.C. No.170/1994 and 171/1994) were instituted against him, but he was acquitted on 12 May 2005. Meanwhile, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 March 2002. No departmental inquiry had been commenced before his retirement. For the first time, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him by an order dated 16 October 2008, more than six years after his retirement. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The court considered whether a departmental inquiry could be initiated against a retired employee. The respondent argued that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 applied to municipal employees and that the inquiry was initiated under Rule 8 thereof. However, the court noted that Rule 8 provides for an inquiry before imposing a major penalty, but it does not authorize initiation of an inquiry against a person who has ceased to be an employee. The court observed that the respondent could not point out any rule permitting such an inquiry against a retired person. Consequently, the court held that the departmental inquiry initiated after the petitioner's retirement was without jurisdiction and quashed the order dated 16 October 2008. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Initiation After Retirement - Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, Rule 8 - Petitioner, a cashier in Municipal Council, was suspended in 1991 on charge of misappropriation but no inquiry was initiated before his retirement on 31.3.2002. Inquiry was initiated for the first time on 16.10.2008, after retirement. Court held that no rule permits initiation of departmental inquiry against a person who is not an employee on the date of initiation. The inquiry was quashed. (Paras 3-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a departmental inquiry can be initiated against a retired employee after his retirement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The order dated 16.10.2008 initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner is quashed. Rule is made absolute.

Law Points

  • Departmental inquiry cannot be initiated against a retired employee
  • Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules
  • 1979
  • Rule 8
  • Rule 9
  • no jurisdiction over ex-employee
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 18

WRIT PETITION NO.1330 OF 2009

2012-02-22

D. G. KARNIK, S B DESHMUKH

Mr. M M Patil Beedkar for Petitioner, Mr. V.B.Ghatge A.G.P. for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.S.Thombare for Respondent No.2

Shankar Shivling Swami

The State Of Maharashtra, The Municipal Council Beed, The Inquiry Officer Shri S.B.Hange

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging initiation of departmental inquiry after retirement.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 16.10.2008 initiating departmental inquiry against him.

Filing Reason

Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner after his retirement, which he contended was without jurisdiction.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner was acquitted in criminal cases R.C.C. No.170/1994 and 171/1994 on May 12, 2005.

Issues

Whether a departmental inquiry can be initiated against a retired employee after his retirement.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that no departmental inquiry could be commenced after his retirement on 31.3.2002 as he was no longer a municipal employee. Respondent contended that Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 applied and inquiry was initiated under Rule 8.

Ratio Decidendi

No departmental inquiry can be initiated against a person who has ceased to be an employee on the date of initiation of the inquiry. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 do not permit such an inquiry.

Judgment Excerpts

No Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner at any time before his retirement and the petitioner was allowed to retire without commencement of any Departmental inquiry against him on the alleged charge of mis-appropriation. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to point out any Rule which permits initiation of a Departmental inquiry against a person, who is not its employee on the date of initiation of the inquiry, or against a person who was retired prior to the initiation of the inquiry.

Procedural History

Petitioner was suspended on 16.1.1991. Criminal cases were filed in 1994. Petitioner retired on 31.3.2002. Acquitted in criminal cases on 12.5.2005. Departmental inquiry initiated on 16.10.2008. Writ petition filed in 2009. Heard and decided on 22.2.2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979: Rule 8, Rule 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Water Charges for Industry in Non-Conforming Zone. Water Charges at Higher Rate of Rs.44 per 1000 litres Upheld as Per Water Charges Rules (Revised) w.e.f. 1-4-1996.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Retired Municipal Employee Challenging Departmental Inquiry Initiated After Retirement. No Rule Permits Inquiry Against Ex-Employee Under Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.