Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings require valid service and presidential sanction before charges can be sustained under service rules.

A charge memorandum served after an employee had been relieved on superannuation could not validly be treated as service on a government servant under Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, because the employee had already ceased to hold that status. Departmental proceedings after retirement were also unsustainable absent the presidential sanction required by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules for proceedings against a retired government servant. The charge memorandum was therefore invalidly served and the post-retirement disciplinary action could not be sustained without the requisite sanction.

---

---

Issues: Whether articles of charge served after the employee had been relieved from duty on superannuation could validly be treated as served on a government servant, and whether departmental proceedings after retirement required sanction of the President.

Analysis: Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 requires the disciplinary authority to deliver the articles of charge and related documents to a government servant. The record showed that the employee had been relieved from duty in the afternoon of 31.03.2013 and the charge memorandum was served only at night thereafter. Once relieved from duty on retirement, he was no longer a government servant for the purpose of service of charges under that rule. The Court further noted that Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 permits initiation of proceedings against a retired government servant only in accordance with the statutory contingencies, including sanction of the President or his delegate, which had not been obtained.

Conclusion: The charge memorandum was invalidly served after retirement, and the departmental proceedings could not be sustained without the requisite presidential sanction. The writ petition was dismissed.

---