DEAR EDITOR,
It is not unusual that the retirement, or dismissal of an employee after the departmental enquiry is held for allegation of misconduct, is governed by the service conditions of the respective departments or organizations. Service conditions vary from organizations to organizations. An employee joins a department or organization upon signing the agreement to abide by the service conditions stipulated in the rule book. When an employee is dismissed from service as a major penalty for misconduct, he forfeits his past service. With this, he is disentitled for terminal benefits like DCRG, Earned Leave encashment etc. If the date of retirement on superannuation arrives even before the on-going enquiry is concluded, and if that employee is under suspension, he will be reinstated on the last day of his service and dismissed if it is decided to do so. It is left to the discretion of the competent authorities to take such action as may be necessary based on the findings of the enquiry officer. Not necessarily it should be dismissal. The action is taken taking into consideration the quantum of crime committed during his service. In other words, the punishment will be commensurate with the misconduct of the employee. The Orissa High Court judgment is in line with the conditions that an employee facing departmental enquiry instituted during his service if found guilty can be dismissed even after retirement if the disciplinary authority contemplates to impose major penalty of dismissal. Employee in government departments under suspension is reinstated on the day he is to retire if his date of superannuation approaches before the enquiry proceeding are concluded and then he is relieved of his duties pending conclusion of enquiry proceedings. The quantum of punishment is decided based on the gravity of the crime committed as found during the enquiry. Departmental enquiry cannot be instituted against a retired employee if the event has occurred four years prior to the date of issue of charge sheet as per Section 214 (2) (b) (ii) of KCSR as observed by the Karnataka High Court. It is right from the justice point of view not to let off the hook a retired employee who had indulged in embezzlement of cash or fudging of accounts or stealing anything from storeyard. Four years time is quite reasonable to subject an employee for enquiry for his misconduct during the time while he was in service. If the retirement is the excuse to ignore the misconduct of an employee during the time he was in service, then a large number of employees in verge of retirement may resort to unethical practices and try to gain pecuniary benefits through unfair means. Because in several cases, the fraud comes to light only after one or two years. Unfortunately, of late the employees facing disciplinary action for misconduct are on rise. In some cases, innocent employees caught in the web of fraudsters face departmental enquiries and face disciplinary action for no fault of own. Sometimes, innocent employees face disciplinary action for “obeying” the oral orders of officers unable to say ‘no’. While the onus of proving innocence rests with the employees involved in departmental enquiry, the enquiry officers should also apply their mind to find out the innocence of the employees who have meekly followed the oral instructions of their official superiors.
K.V. Seetharamaiah