Post-retirement disciplinary sanction requires application of mind; charge memo was quashed for ignoring amended material and unsupported charges.

Post-retirement disciplinary action required valid sanction and a proper application of mind to the materials placed before the sanctioning authority. The charge memorandum was found unsustainable because the first charge rested on a circular that had later been amended, yet the amendment and the petitioner's explanation were not considered. The second charge was also not shown to have been placed before the sanctioning authority in the form in which it was ultimately framed. As the decision-making process lacked proper consideration of the relevant materials, the charge memorandum and consequential memo were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge memorandum and related memo issued after the petitioner's retirement were liable to be quashed for want of proper sanction and non-application of mind, including because the foundation for the first charge had been amended away and the second charge was not supported by the sanction material.

Analysis: The challenge was examined on the basis that post-retirement disciplinary action could proceed only upon valid sanction and that the sanctioning authority had to consider the relevant materials before authorising the charge memo. The record showed that the first charge was founded on a 2003 circular which had later been amended, yet the subsequent amendment and the petitioner's explanation regarding implementation were not considered. The second charge was also not shown to have been placed before the sanctioning authority in the form in which it was later framed. In these circumstances, the decision-making process was found to suffer from want of proper application of mind and the charge memo could not be sustained on relevant materials.

Conclusion: The charge memorandum and the consequential memo were unsustainable and liable to be quashed, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioner.

---