V.K GUPTA, D.P.KUNDU, JJ. - (1.) This appeal can be disposed of on a very short point. The appellant at the relevant time was an employee of the Calcutta Improvement Trust. He admittedly retired from the service of the Trust on January 31, 1994. On June 2, 1997 an office order was issued by the Calcutta Improvement Trust, respondent 1 in this appeal whereby a charge-sheet was served upon the appellant. This office order was accompanied by the copy of the charge-sheet, Annexure 1 being article of the charge- sheet, Annexure 2 being Statement of Imputations, Annexure 3 being list of witnesses and Annexure 4 being the memo of evidence. The appellant challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings through the aforesaid charge-sheet issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ application in this Court but the appellant's contentions before the learned single Judge failed who vide judgment dated April 13, 1998, dismissed the Writ application. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(2.) Respondent 1, in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 31 of the Calcutta Improvement Trust Act framed Calcutta Improvement Trust Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1988. It is under these Rules generally speaking that detailed provisions are made for grant of pension and other retirement benefits to the employees. Rule 54 of 1988 Rules reads as under: "54. (1) Subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees these rules may be amended or modified mutatis mutandis on the model of the corresponding provisions of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 as amended from time to time. (2) Any matter not covered by these Rules shall be decided mutatis mutandis on the basis of the provision in this behalf in the aforesaid rules."
(3.) There is no provision in the aforesaid 1988 Rules whereby disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee of the Calcutta Improvement Trust after his retirement. Since in the present case admittedly, the appellant retired on January 31, 1994, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on June 2, 1997, that is almost 31 years after his retirement, 1988 Rules not being applicable, on the force of Rule 54 (supra), respondent 1 based the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on West Bengal Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. Rule 10 of 1971 Rules reads as under: "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, it 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 the officer, 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 officer 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.....";