Corrupt public servants cannot escape disciplinary proceedings on their superannuation, held the Supreme Court in a recent judgement. The decision has come as a huge blow to delinquent officers who abuse the delay in departmental proceedings while in service and later get away on their retirement with the proceedings remaining inconclusive.
The court, while dealing with a case involving a retired West Bengal cop said, “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.”
The cop who was facing charges of amassing disproportionate assets was charged of grave misconduct by the West Bengal Police which proceeded with six charges against him on July 31, 2007. The officer Pronab Chakraborty had acquired land, property and bank deposits to the extent of over Rs 3.44 lakh while posted as sub-inspector in Howrah district during the period 1988 to 1993. He failed to give any cogent explanation for the above acquisitions which forced the department to proceed against him.
After six months, Chakraborty retired and soon appealed against the pending departmental action before the WB Administrative Tribunal which permitted action as per WB Service Rules 1971. Not getting a satisfactory response, he approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the WB Services Rules 1971. Under the Rules, departmental proceedings could continue after superannuation only in cases where pecuniary loss was caused to the Government involving a grave misconduct charge.
The HC took a view that the case at hand did not merit continuation of disciplinary action as no pecuniary loss was caused to the State. The apex court overruled this decision by stating, “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.”
The decision of the apex court would certainly strengthen the hands of the Government to punish the corrupt and pursue action even beyond their retirement. Past decisions of the Court on this subject had held that departmental action could not continue against retired employees if State Service Rules do not specifically provide for continuation of such proceedings.