The Supreme Court recently quashed a charge sheet filed against a retired judicial officer in Odisha who was facing departmental proceedings for alleged irregularities in the selection of caretakers.
A bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Ajay Rastogi has further ruled that the retired judicial officer is entitled to receive all retirement benefits.
The retired Judicial Officer from Odisha filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court, seeking the quashing of departmental proceedings initiated against her following the submission of a chargesheet. The officer had previously served as the Registrar of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal from June 28, 2012, to October 1, 2015. During her tenure as Registrar, an advertisement was published for the position of ‘Caretaker’, which led to a selection process and subsequent appointment of suitable candidates.
The selection process faced legal challenges and was initially dismissed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The High Court also dismissed the subsequent challenge. Following these dismissals, a fact-finding inquiry was initiated by the High Court on the Administrative Side to investigate the selection process for the appointment of Caretakers.
Merely two days prior to the retirement of the judicial officer, a letter was issued to her, alleging irregularities in the selection process, followed by the filing of a chargesheet. The petitioner contended that since she had already retired, Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 applied, which states that a departmental inquiry against a retired officer, sanctioned by the Government, cannot pertain to any incident that occurred more than four years prior to its initiation. The petitioner argued that the allegations mentioned in the chargesheet exceeded the four-year time limit.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that the notice had been issued to the petitioner prior to her retirement, and the chargesheet was a continuation of the aforementioned notice. Therefore, the restrictions outlined in Rule 7 would not be applicable.
The court determined that the chargesheet blatantly violated the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1992. Consequently, the chargesheet and all related departmental proceedings initiated against the officer were nullified by the court. Additionally, the court expressed the following:
“The petitioner is entitled to all terminal/retiral benefits, if the same have been withheld because of pendency of the departmental inquiry, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was withheld, until actually paid.”
