STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusPRONAB CHAKRABORTY

A
                       [2014] 11 S.C.R. 76


               STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
                                                                 •
                                v.
                     PRONAB CHAKRABORTY
               (Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012 etc.)
                       OCTOBER 15, 2014
B
     [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.)

        Service Law:

c       West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit)
    Rules, 1971 - r.10(1) - Departmental proceedings -
    Continuation of - After superannuation of the delinquent
    employee - Permissibility - Held: Departmental proceedings
    can be continued even after retirement on attaining
o   superannuation age.

        Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: Even in the absence of any pecuniary loss
  caused to the Government, it is open to the employer to
E continue the departmental proceedings after the
  employee has retired from service. Obviously, if such
  grave misconduct or negligence, entails pecuniary loss
  to the Government, the loss can also be ordered to be
  recovered from the concerned employee. [Para 5) [81-H;
F 82-A-B]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2641 of 2012.                         •

      From the Judgment & Order dated 22.12.2010 of the High
G Court at Calcutta in W.P.S.T. No. 497 of 2010

                              WITH

    C.A. No. 2642, 2643, 2616 of 2012 and 9828 of 2014.
H                              76
•      STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PRONAB
                CHAKRABORTY
      Kalyan Kr. Bandopadhyay, Anip Sachthey, Shagun Matta
for the Appellants.
                                                            77


                                                                   A


    Avijit Bhattacharjee, Bikas Kar Gupta, Sarbani Kar, Deba
Prasad Mukherjee, Subhasish Bhowmick, S.C. Patel, Nitin
Luthra, Vasuman Khandelwal, Gaurav Agrawal for the                 B
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    J.S. KHEHAR, J. :

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2641 OF 2012
                                                                   c
      1. The respondent - Pronab Chakraborty was inducted
into the ~mployment of the police department of the State of
West Bengal, wherein while he was holding the post of Inspector
of Police in the Enforcement Branch, he was issued a               D
chargesheet dated 31.07.2007. The charges which were
levelled against the respondent, are being extracted hereunder:

    "CHARGE - 1 : While you were a S.I. of Police of Howrah
    District during the period between 01.01.88 and 31.12.93,      E
    you acquired total assets in the shape of land, property and
    deposit in the Bank to the extent of Rs. 3,44,600/-. Out of
    the said sum, an amount of Rs. 2,69,246.80 paise for which
    you could not give any cogent explanation for acquisition
    of the properties which were subsequently established as       F
    disproportionate of asset to your known source of income.

    CHARGE - 2 : On 21.06.2002 you acquired the asset in
    the shape of investment in United Bank of India, Sahanpur
    Branch, Howrah as fixed deposit to the extent of Rs.
    5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only vide A.C. No. 401/ G
    02 in the name of your son, Partha Pratim Chakraborty
    and sister-in-law Smt. Krishna Majumder both dependent
    on you. You could not give any cogent explanation for such
    acquisition which is disproportionate to your known source
    of income.                                                 H
A
    78       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 11 S.C.R.


         CHARGE - 3 : On 27.07.1988 while you were attached
                                                                     •
         with the Howrah District as S.I .. acquired immovable
         property in the shape of a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas
         vide Dag No. 538, Khatian No. 678, Mouza Sahanpur,
         District Howrah in the name of your wife, Sm!. Sandhya
B        Chakraborty and dependent sister-in-law at the cost of Rs.
         33,600/- vide Deed No. 1-4344/88. You constructed a
         house thereon and subsequently disposed of the house by
         selling the same to Smt. Malati Devi Barnwal at the cost
         of Rs. 3 Lakhs vide Sale Deed No. 1957/96. You did not
c        obtain prior sanction from your appointing authority before
         purchase of land, construction of house and sale of the
         house which is obligatory on the part of a Public Servant.
         As such, you are charged with gross misconduct.

         CHARGE - 4 : On 24.10.2000 and on 19.06.2003 you
D        acquired movable properties in the shape of Motor Cycle
         having registered No. ,WB-124-3924 at the cost of Rs.
         47,0001- and WB-12H-7613 at the cost of Rs. 33,500/- in
         the name of your dependent son Shri Partha Pratim
         Chakraborty. You did not obtain prior permission from your
E        appointing authority before purchase which is obligatory
         on the part of a Public Servant. You are thereby charged
         with grave misconduct.

         CHARGE - 5 : You ere charged with misconduct for not
F        submitting declaration of assets for the period as they
         stood on and from 01 .01 .90 to 01.01.99 which were
         revealed from the Memo. No. 3219/DEB dated 19.12.96
         of S.P., D.E.B., Howrah and Memo. No. 118/PER/GA-ll/
         PER/GA-11/45-2000 dated 22.01.2001 of Inspector
         General of Police, Headquarters, West Bengal. Those
G        declaration of assets were called for the purpose of
         scrutiny of assets either acquired by you in your own name
         or acquired in the name of other dependence on you.

         CHARGE - 6 : You submitted your declaration of assets
H        for the period as they stood on 25.08.99 and 31.01.2000
•         STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PRONAB
       CHAKRABORTY [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
         which should have been submitted on 01.01.99 and A
         01.01.2000. The declaration of assets bore no date of
                                                                 79




         submission and you did not deliberately disclose the
         material information regarding acquisition of assets with
         a malafide intention to suppress the actual assets. You
         were·charged for grave misconduct."                       B

         2. Soon after the issuance of the above chargesheet, the
    respondent retired from service on attaining the age of
    superannuation on 31.01.2008. Dissatisfied with the
    continuation of the above departmental proceedings (in C
    furtherance of the chargesheet dated 31.07.2007), after the
    respondent - Pronab Chakraborty had attained the age of
    superannuation, he approached the West Bengal Administrative
    Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Administrative Tribunal')
    by filing Case No. O.A. 8547 of 2007. In the above case an
    order dated 05.08.2010 was passed by the Administrative D
    Tribunal, directing the enquiring authority to dispose of the
    pending departmental proceedings in accordance with the
     Rules.

           3. The above order dated 05.08.201 O was assailed by the E
      respondent before the High Court of Calcutta (hereinafter
      referred to as 'the High Court') by filing W.P.S.T No. 497 of
      2010. The primary contention of the respondent before the High
      Court was, that the respondent having retired on attaining the
      age of superannuation (with effect from 31.01.2008), F
      departmental proceedings initiated against him, could not be
      allowed to proceed further. The High Court, vide its impugned
      order dated 22.12.2010, accepted the prayer made by the
    · respondent. The High Court, having interpreted Rule 10(1) of
      the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) G
      Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Rules'), arrived
      at the conclusion, that departmental proceedings being
      conducted against an individual employee, could proceed
      further after the employee's retirement, only when the
      allegations contained in the charges levelled against him, depict H
A
    80       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 11 S.C.R.


    pecuniary loss to the State Government. The High Court further
                                                                         •
    arrived at the conclusion, that since the charges levelled against
    the respondent herein, did not depict any pecuniary loss to the
    State Government, proceedings against the respondent could
    not continue after 31.01.2008.
8
        4. The State of West Bengal has assailed the order
    passed by the High Court on 22.12.2010 by asserting, that Rule
    10 of the 1971 Rules had been incorrectly interpreted by the
    High Court. Therefore, the solitary issue that arises for our
C   consideration in the present Appeal is, the interpretation of Rule
    10 of the 1971 Rules. Rule 10(1) aforementioned is extracted
    hereunder:

         "10. Right of the Governor to withhold pension in certain
         cases. - (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of
D        withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it
         whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right
         of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or
         part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the
         pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding
E        to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence,
         during the period of his service, including service rendered
         on re-employment after retirement:

         Provided that-

F        (a) such departmental proceeding if instituted while the
         officer was in service, whether before his retirement or
         during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of
         the office, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article
         and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by
G        which it was commenced in the same manner as if the
         officer had continued in service;

         (b) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while
         the office was in service, whether before his retirement or
         during his re-employment-
H
•      STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PRONAB
    CHAKRABORTY [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
            (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
                                                                  81


                                                                        A
            the Governor;

            (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
            place more than (four years) before such institution;
            and                                                         B
            (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in
            such place as the Governor may direct and in
            accordance with the procedure applicable to
            departmental proceedings in which an order of
            dismissal from service could be made in relation            C
            to the officer during his service;

     (c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the
     officer was in service, whether before his retirement or
     during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of         o
     a cause of action which arose or an event which took
     place more than (four years) before such institution .... "

A perusal' of Rule 10(1) extracted heremabove
                                           .       reveals, that two
different kinds of punishments are contemplated thereunder.
Firstly," ... the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension ... "   E
which the delinquent employee is entitled to, permanently or for
a specified period. And secondly, " ... the right of ordering the
recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused to the Government ... ". The above two punishments
can be inflicted on a delinquent, even after he retires on attaining    F
the age of superannuation, provided he is found guilty of" ...
grave misconduct or negligence ... " during the period of his
service.

      5. It is therefore apparent, that it is not only for pecuniary    G
loss caused to the Government that proceedings can continue
after the date of superannuation. An employee can be
proceeded against, after the date of his retirement, on account
of" ... grave misc;:onduct or negligence ... ". Therefore, even in
the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government,
                                                                        H
A
    82       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R.


     it is open to the employer to continue the departmental
                                                                     •
     proceedings after the employee has retired from service .
   . Obviously, if such grave misconduct or negligence, entails
     pecuniary loss to the Government, the loss can also be ordered
     to be recovered from the concerned employee. It was therefore
B · not right for the High Court, while interpreting Rule 10(1) of the
     1971 Rules to conclude, that proceedings after the date of
     superannuation could continue, only when the charges entailed
     pecuniary loss to the Government.

C        6. In view of the above, we hereby set aside the impugned
    order passed by the High c.ourt. We reaffirm the order passed
    by the Administrative Tribunal on 05.08.2010.

         7. Civil Appeal is allowed, with no order as to costs.

D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2616 OF 2012

       Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the rival
  parties agree that the controversy in this Appeal is squarely
  covered by the decision rendered by this Court in State of West
  Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab Chakraborty (Civil Appeal No. 2641
E of 2012 decided on October 15, 2014).

         2. The instant Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, in
    terms of order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012. No
    costs.

F CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2643 OF 2012

       Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the rival
  parties agree that the controversy in this Appeal is squarely
  covered by the decision rendered by this Court in State of West
G Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab Chakraborty (Civil Appeal No. 2641
  of 2012 decided on October 15, 2014).

       2. The instant Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, in
  terms of order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012. No
H costs.
•      ~··~




          STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. PRONAB
       CHAKRABORTY [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.)
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2642 OF 2012
                                                                  83


                                                                        A

         Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the rival
    parties agree that the controversy in this Appeal is squarely
    covered by the decision rendered by this Court in State of West
    Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab Chakraborty (Civil Appeal No. 2641
                                                                        B
    of 2012 decided on October 15, 2014).

         2. The instant Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed, in
    terms of order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012. No
    costs.
                                                                        c
    S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO. 9015 OF 2014

          1. Delay condoned.

          2. Leave granted.
                                                                        D
        3. The proposition of law wherein the State Government
    had preferred the present special leave petition, has been
    accepted by us while disposing of the case titled as State of
    West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab Chakrborty (Civil Appeal No.
    2641 of 2012 decided on October 15, 2014). In fact, for the         E
    above reason, the instant matter came to be tagged with Civil
    Appeal No. 2641 of 2012.

         4. The decision rendered by us in Civil Appeal No. 2641
    of 2012 does not go into the merits of the controversy, but it
    only examines the permissibility of the continuation of the         F
    departmental proceedings after the superannuation of the
    concerned employee.

         5. Therefore, even as against the respondent herein we
    hold, that the departmental proceedings can be continued even       G
    after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation (with
    effect from 31.01.2007). Viewed thus, we consider it just and
    proper to relegate the matter back to the High Court for
    adjudication of the controversy raised by the respondent on
    merits in accordance with Jaw. The High Court shall examine         H
                                                                            ...______
A
    84        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 11 S.C.R.


    the merits of the controversy, besides the issue which we have
    settled while disposing of Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012.
                                                                       •
         6. Civil Appeal is disposed of as above, with no order as
    to costs.
B   Kalpana K. Tripathy                         Appeals disposed of.