VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 489
893
In the aforesaid premises, the Supreme Court has no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court of Bombay
committed error in holding that the police officer could not have seized
the bank account or could not have issued any direction to the bank
officer, prohibiting the account of the accused from being operated
upon.
(489)
Pension Rules — four-year limitation
Four-year limitation does not operate in respect of
proceedings pursued after retirement, on account
of penalty of removal from service being set aside
by Tribunal.
Chandrasekhar Puttur vs. Telecom District Manager,
2000(2) SLJ CAT Bangalore 445
Applicant was removed from service but the Central
Administrative Tribunal set aside the order of removal with liberty to
take further action as per rules. By this time applicant retired from service
and proceedings continued under rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules.
On the application of limitation under the Pension Rules, the
Central Administrative Tribunal observed that when the penalty order
is set aside by the Tribunal or in an appeal on account of an irregularity
in the inquiry and liberty is given to the competent authority to continue
the proceedings from the stage at which the irregularity occurred,
then for all practical purposes, that part of the proceedings which
has been held to be void should be treated as non est and the result
would be that the proceedings must be deemed to have been pending
when the employee retired from service. Sub-rule (2)(b) indicates
that it is only where the proceedings are to be instituted after the
retirement, the sanction of the President is required. The Tribunal
was unable to hold that any distinction can be made between the two
classes of cases referred to by the applicant. When once it is held
that sanction of the President is not necessary in respect of first class
of cases it necessarily follows that such a sanction would not be