BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT no.1 retired on 30.6.2005. On 2.11.2007, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent no.1. In that, three specific charges were made out. Those were pertaining to period 1.6.1999 to 30.6.2005. Respondent no.1 challenged the said charge sheet before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the said charge sheet is incompetent as the same was not in accordance with Regulation 351(A) of the Civil Service Regulations. The Tribunal has accepted the contention of respondent no.1 and has, accordingly, quashed the said charge sheet with a direction to release post-retiral benefits of the respondent No.1. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE Tribunal found as a fact, to which there is no dispute that after a government employee has retired, recourse to disciplinary proceedings can only be taken against such an employee under Regulation 351(A) of the said Regulations. By the said Regulation, the Governor of the State has alone been authorized to initiate proceedings to establish guilt of grave misconduct on the part of a retired employee, or in respect of pecuniary loss caused to the government by misconduct or negligence on the part of a retired employee, for the purpose of withholding or withdrawing pension. The Tribunal found that the State has failed to bring on record anything wherefrom it would be evidenced that the said charge sheet was issued on the directions of the Governor of the State or that the Governor of the State granted prior sanction for issuance of the said charge sheet or post facto sanction thereto. In the writ petition, it has not been contended by the State that the Governor had given his assent for initiating action, as was initiated by the said charge sheet. Yesterday, learned counsel for the State wanted a day's time to verify whether there is any file noting by the Governor. Learned counsel for the State has reported to us today that he has not been able to obtain any instruction in that regard.
(3.) IN the writ petition, petitioner/State is contending that the said charge sheet was authorized by the Minister In-charge and appropriate file noting in that regard is available. It was contended that in terms of the Rules of Business, made in exercise of powers conferred by Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Minister In-charge of Irrigation Department, i.e. the Department from where the respondent no.1 has retired, was competent to authorize issuance of the said charge sheet.;