Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2641 OF 2012 STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.                APPELLANT(S)                         VERSUS PRONAB CHAKRABORTY                         RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2642 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2643 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2616 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9828  OF 2014

(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9015 of 2014)

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T J.S. KHEHAR, J. :

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2641 OF 2012 The respondent – Pronab Chakraborty was inducted  

into  the  employment  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  chargesheet  dated  31.07.2007.   The  charges which were levelled against the respondent, are  being extracted hereunder:

Page 2

2

“CHARGE – 1 : While you were a S.I. of Police of  Howrah  District  during  the  period  between  01.01.88 and 31.12.93, 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  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. 401/02 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. 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, Smt. Sandhya  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  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  acquired  movable  properties  in  the  shape  of  Motor  Cycle  having  registered  No.  WB-124-3924  at the cost of Rs. 47,000/- and WB-12H-7613 at  the cost of Rs. 33,500/- in the name of your

Page 3

3

dependent  son  Shri  Partha  Pratim  Chakraborty.  You did not obtain prior permission from your  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  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-II/PER/GA-II/45-2000  dated 22.01.2001 of Inspector General of Police,  Headquarters, West Bengal.  Those 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 for the period as they stood on 25.08.99  and 31.01.2000 which should have been submitted  on 01.01.99 and 01.01.2000.  The declaration of  assets bore no date of 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.”

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  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

Page 4

4

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 Tribunal, directing the  enquiring  authority  to  dispose  of  the  pending  departmental proceedings in accordance with the Rules. 3. The above order dated 05.08.2010 was assailed by  the  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),  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) 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 pecuniary loss to the State Government. The

Page 5

5

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. 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 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  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  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- (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

Page 6

6

the office, be deemed to be a proceeding under  this  article  and  shall  be  continued  and  concluded  by  the  authority  by  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—

(i) shall not be instituted save with the  sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event  which took place more than (four years)  before such institution; and (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 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 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 hereinabove reveals,  that two different kinds of punishments are contemplated  thereunder. Firstly, “... the right of withholding or  withdrawing a pension ...” which the delinquent employee  is entitled to, permanently or for a specified period.  And secondly, “... the right of ordering the recovery

Page 7

7

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  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  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  misconduct  or  negligence  ...”.  Therefore,  even in the absence of any pecuniary loss caused to the  Government, 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 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.

Page 8

8

6. In view of the above, we hereby set aside the  impugned order passed by the High Court. We reaffirm the  order  passed  by  the  Administrative  Tribunal  on  05.08.2010.   7. Civil Appeal is allowed, with no order as to  costs. 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 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. 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 Bengal & Ors. Vs. Pronab  Chakraborty  (Civil Appeal No. 2641 of 2012 decided on  October 15, 2014). 2. The  instant  Civil  Appeal  is,  accordingly,

Page 9

9

allowed, in terms of order passed in Civil Appeal No.  2641 of 2012.  No costs. CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 2642 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 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.

S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO. 9015 OF 2014 Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted. 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 above reason, the  instant matter came to be tagged with Civil Appeal No.  2641 of 2012.   

Page 10

10

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 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 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 law.  The High Court shall examine 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.

.........................J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI; .............................J. OCTOBER 15, 2014. (ARUN MISHRA)