Departmental enquiry can continue after retirement where instituted in service; delay alone does not automatically vitiate disciplinary action.

Departmental proceedings validly instituted while a government servant remains in service may be continued after retirement where the governing pension rules expressly permit continuation and conclusion of the enquiry post-superannuation. Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 was treated as authorising that limited continuation when the charge memo had been issued before retirement. Delay in completing a domestic enquiry does not automatically invalidate disciplinary action; its effect depends on the facts, including whether the delay is explained and whether the employee contributed to it. On the recorded facts, the delay was not treated as fatal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disciplinary proceedings instituted while a government servant was in service could be continued after retirement under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. (ii) Whether delay in completing domestic enquiry proceedings was fatal to the disciplinary action.

Issue (i): Whether disciplinary proceedings instituted while a government servant was in service could be continued after retirement under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.

Analysis: Rule 10(1) reserves to the Governor the power to withhold or withdraw pension and to recover pecuniary loss where a pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings. The proviso specifically permits departmental proceedings instituted while the officer was in service to be continued and concluded after final retirement. The charge memo had been issued while the employee was still in service, and the proceedings had therefore been validly instituted before superannuation. The rule was treated as authorising continuation of the enquiry after retirement for the limited purpose contemplated by the rule.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative, and the employer was entitled to continue the departmental enquiry after retirement.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in completing domestic enquiry proceedings was fatal to the disciplinary action.

Analysis: Delay does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings. Whether delay is fatal depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Unexplained and protracted delay may justify interference, but satisfactorily explained delay may not. On the facts, the record supported the finding that the employee's own conduct, including absence from headquarters without permission, contributed to the inability to complete the proceedings. That factual finding was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative, and the delay was not held fatal to the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside, and the disciplinary proceedings were permitted to continue from the stage at which they had been interrupted, to be concluded expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental proceedings are validly instituted while the employee is in service, they may be continued after retirement under the governing pension rules, and delay will not by itself invalidate the proceedings unless it is unexplained and shown to be prejudicial on the facts of the case.

---