Post-superannuation dismissal and unexplained disciplinary delay made the service action unsustainable in law.

Disciplinary dismissal could not be imposed after superannuation unless the governing service regulations specifically authorised that penalty; an inquiry may continue after retirement, but the employee ceases to be in service on the date of superannuation. The Court also treated an unexplained delay of about seven years in issuing the charge-sheet, together with denial of pension and subsistence allowance, as rendering the proceedings unfair because the employee lacked the means to defend himself effectively. On these facts, the dismissal was without jurisdiction and the disciplinary action was held unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether punishment of dismissal could be imposed after the employee had superannuated under the applicable service regulations; (ii) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by inordinate delay and denial of pension or subsistence allowance, impairing the employee's ability to defend himself.

Issue (i): Whether punishment of dismissal could be imposed after the employee had superannuated under the applicable service regulations.

Analysis: The service regulations provided that disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation could continue after retirement, but the employee would cease to be in service on the date of superannuation. The Court applied the settled position that while an inquiry may continue, substantive penalties like dismissal cannot be imposed after retirement unless the governing regulations specifically authorize such punishment. The cited regulations did not confer such power.

Conclusion: The dismissal order could not validly be imposed after superannuation and was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by inordinate delay and denial of pension or subsistence allowance, impairing the employee's ability to defend himself.

Analysis: The charge-sheet was issued after an unexplained delay of about seven years. The Court treated the delay as unreasonable and noted that the employee had also been denied pension and any subsistence allowance during the pendency of the proceedings, leaving him without financial means to defend himself effectively. On these facts, the proceedings were held to have been conducted unfairly and in a manner inconsistent with access to justice.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by unexplained delay and by denial of financial support necessary for an effective defence.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's decision failed, and the disciplinary action against the employee could not survive in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing service regulations do not authorize dismissal after superannuation, and the delinquent employee is additionally deprived of the means to meaningfully defend himself, the disciplinary action is illegal, without jurisdiction, and unsustainable.

---