Court affirms Tribunal's decision on charges served to retired officer; emphasizes status, relief report, and President's sanction.

The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision in a writ petition challenging the service of Articles of Charge to a retired Additional Commissioner of Central Excise. The court emphasized that charges can only be served on a "Government Servant" and not after retirement, as confirmed by the Relief Report showing the respondent's relief from duties before the service of charges. Additionally, the court noted the absence of the President's sanction required for initiating departmental proceedings against a retired Government Servant, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition and affirming the Tribunal's order.

---

---

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.

---