Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings cannot bypass the four-year limitation under pension rules, even with sanction.

SC analysed Rule 9(2)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and held that post-retirement departmental proceedings require the President's sanction and must relate to events within four years of initiation. Fresh memoranda issued after retirement, and beyond the four-year period, could not be treated as a mere continuation of earlier quashed proceedings; they amounted to fresh initiation and were time-barred. The Court further held that statutory sanction under Rule 9 cannot override the rule's limitation requirement, and procedural compliance must be in the manner prescribed by law. The sanction therefore did not cure the defect, and the impugned continuation of proceedings was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether departmental proceedings initiated after retirement were barred by the four-year limitation in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. (ii) Whether the sanction and continuation of proceedings under Rule 9(2) could be sustained as a valid statutory exercise of power.

Issue (i): Whether departmental proceedings initiated after retirement were barred by the four-year limitation in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Analysis: Rule 9(2)(b) permits institution of departmental proceedings after retirement only with the President's sanction, and clause (ii) further restricts such institution to events occurring not more than four years earlier. The proceedings in both matters were restarted after retirement and the fresh memoranda were issued well beyond four years from the alleged incidents. The earlier proceedings had been quashed, and the fresh institution was therefore the operative initiation for the purpose of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii). The limitation safeguard could not be bypassed by treating the matter as a mere continuation when the proceedings were in fact re-initiated afresh after retirement.

Conclusion: The bar of limitation under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) applied, and the fresh departmental proceedings were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the sanction and continuation of proceedings under Rule 9(2) could be sustained as a valid statutory exercise of power.

Analysis: The power exercised under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) is statutory and distinct from executive action under Articles 77 and 166 of the Constitution of India. A statutory sanction must operate within the confines of the rule, including the four-year restriction in clause (ii). The Court also reiterated that judicial review extends to statutory action, and that a procedure prescribed by law must be followed in the manner prescribed. On that footing, the sanction could not validate proceedings that were time-barred under the governing rule.

Conclusion: The sanction could not cure the limitation defect, and the impugned continuation of proceedings was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment of the High Court was set aside, but the disciplinary authority was left at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law and natural justice within the time directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules prescribe a specific precondition and a four-year limit for instituting post-retirement disciplinary proceedings, those proceedings cannot be validly commenced outside that period by relying on sanction alone.

---