BriefsMadras Hc Quashes Chargesheet Against Retired District Judge In 24-Year-Old Allegation; Cites 4-Year Limit On Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Officials

“Skip to content

Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

CONNECT

NAVIGATION
HomeCase BriefsMadras Hc Quashes Chargesheet Against Retired District Judge In 24-Year-Old Allegation; Cites 4-Year Limit On Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Officials
Madras HC quashes chargesheet against retired district judge in 24-year-old allegation; Cites 4-year limit on disciplinary proceedings against retired officials
“The embargo that the departmental proceedings shall not be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution of chargesheet hits at the root of the respondent.”

Published on October 24, 2025By Editor

Advertisement
>< Madras High Court: In the present petition, a retired Principal District Judge challenged a chargesheet issued for allegedly purchasing land in 2000 without prior permission. Since the charge was nearly 24 years old and issued post-retirement, he sought its quashing and a direction to process his pension under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (Rules, 1978’). The Division Bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava*, CJ., and R. Poornima, J., while allowing the petition held that the misconduct alleged was almost 24 years old and, therefore, the chargesheet did not relate to an event within four years preceding its institution. The Court emphasised that any earlier enquiry was merely preliminary and did not satisfy the legal requirement to treat departmental proceedings as having commenced prior to the issuance of the statement of charges. Background: The case arose from a charge against the petitioner, who was alleged to have committed misconduct by purchasing two cents of land on 06-07-2000 while in service, without obtaining prior permission. A chargesheet was issued on 21-08-2024, which prompted the petitioner to approach the Court challenging its validity. The petitioner raised three main points. First, since he was retired on 31-05-2023 upon reaching the age of superannuation, no departmental enquiry could be initiated against him except under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1978. Second, the charge sheet was issued without complying with the mandatory conditions under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1978. Third, the petitioner argued that the Rules only required information to be given about the land purchase, not prior permission, and hence no misconduct was made out. The respondent countered that although the formal chargesheet was issued after the petitioner’s retirement, the complaint was received earlier and preliminary enquiries were already underway within the High Court. These, according to the respondent, constituted departmental proceedings under the Rules, 1978. It was also argued that since the petitioner was under the control of the Court under Article 235 of the Constitution, no permission from the State Government was needed. Lastly, the respondent maintained that the enquiry was initiated promptly upon receiving the complaint, and the charge sheet clearly disclosed misconduct. Analysis and Decision: The Court emphasised that Rule 9(6)(b) of the Rules, 1978 clearly provided that departmental proceedings were deemed to be instituted on the date the statement of charges was issued or, if suspension occurred earlier, on such date. The Court found that the statement of charges was issued to the petitioner only on 21-08-2024 and not before that. The Court noted that any enquiry being conducted earlier was in the nature of preliminary enquiry, which did not satisfy the legal requirement of the Rules, 1978 to hold that the departmental proceedings were deemed to have commenced prior to the date of issuance of statement of charges. Therefore, on this count, the Court held that the submission of the petitioner deserved to be accepted. The Court highlighted that although departmental proceedings could be initiated after retirement, Rule 9(2)(b) of the Rules, 1978 mandated certain preconditions before issuance of a chargesheet. The Court emphasised that a fair and logical reading of the Rule revealed that if proceedings were not ins