1 2026:CGHC:17144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 510 of 2022 1 - Anil Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Satya Narayan Dewangan Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Hig 101, Block A, Kanchanjunga Parisar , Near Adarsh Chowk , Kabir Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Ceo (Chairperson), Lic Of India , Yogakshem, Jeevan Bima Marg , Mumbai , District Mumbai Maharashtra. 2 - Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Managing Director (Disciplinary Authority), Central Office, Yogakshem, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai District Mumbai Maharashta. 3 - Divisional Office Through Its Manager (P And Ir) Life Insurance Of India Jeevan Prakash, Jeevan Bima Marg, P.B. No. 10, Pandri, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 Call for all the relevant records of the petitioner's case for perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 issued by Managing Director (Disciplinary Authority) (respondent no.2), in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus to issue command and directing the respondent authorities to grant all the benefits as per principal of service jurisprudence. 10.4 Cost of proceedings. 10.5 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant.” 2. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India vide order dated 11.6.1984 and he got retired from service on account of superannuation on 30.11.2018. She would submit that an application was moved before the Regional Manager for payment of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension, etc on 23.1.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner was served with an article of charge on 19.7.2019 alleging irregularities committed by him during his tenure as Branch Manager (P & GS), Raipur, as follows: “(i) He has passed five death claim vouchers under the Janshree Bima Yojna without proper verification or on the basis of forged/ false documents. (ii) He authenticated new business adjustments under JBY Master Policies without receiving any proposal forms from the nodal agencies.” 3 Learned Senior Advocate would refer Rule 48(1) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short ‘Rules 1995’) and would submit that no departmental or judicial proceedings, can be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. She would contend that as per allegations mentioned in article of charge, the death claim vouchers were verified by the petitioner in the year 2009-10 whereas, the article of charge was issued in the year 2019 and thus, the initiation of the departmental enquiry and imposition of penalty specifically withholding of pension by three stages vide order dated 13.8.2021 are bad in law. She would submit that though the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner in its enquiry report whereas, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings recorded therein and inflicted penalty as stated above, which is under challenge. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others. The CBI, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet on 17.8.2015, however, name of the petitioner was dropped in absence of sufficient evidence. He would submit that as final report was filed by CBI in the year 2015, the cause of action arose in the said year and before expiry of four years, article of charge was issued against the petitioner and departmental enquiry was also contemplated for violation of the service rules. It is argued that departmental enquiry was contemplated in accordance with the Rule 48 of the Rules 1995 and thereafter, a full- fledged departmental enquiry was conducted and penalty of withholding of pension in three stages was passed by the disciplinary 4 authority. He would contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. The petitioner was retired from service on 30.11.2018. The respondents have not placed on record either copy of FIR lodged against the petitioner or a copy of the final report submitted by the CBI. As argued by counsel for the respondents that initially name of the petitioner was included as an accused in the FIR, but subsequently in the final report his name was dropped in absence of material evidence. It is also argued that the cause of action arose after the filing of the charge-sheet; thus, the article of charge was issued and a departmental enquiry was contemplated before the expiry of four years. However, the contention made by counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted on the following grounds: (i) Copy of FIR has not been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was one of the accused; (ii) In the final report as informed by counsel for the respondents, name of the petitioner was dropped due to absence of sufficient evidence. (iii) The cause of action or the event had taken place in the year 2009-10 whereas, the article of charge was issued on 19.7.2019, after the expiry of four-year period as provided under Rule 48 of Rules, 1995. Rule 48 of Rules 1995 deals with the recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation and same is reproduced herein below: “Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation - 5 (1) The Competent Authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service : Provided that the Executive Committee shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that departmental proceedings, if instituted while the employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service: Provided also that no departmental or judicial proceedings, if not initiated while the employee was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution. (2) Where the Competent Authority orders recovery of the pecuniary loss from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of the employee: Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension payable under these rules.” 6. A bare reading of proviso appended to Rule 48 of Rules, 1995 would make it clear that departmental or judicial proceedings cannot be initiated against an employee in respect of a cause of action which 6 arose, or an event which took place more than four years prior to such institution. In the present case, the cause of action as well as the event arose in the year 2009-10, however, the article of charge was served upon the petitioner on 19.7.2019 after a lapse of approximately 9-10 years and thus, the initiation of the departmental enquiry was in direct contravention to the proviso appended to Rule 48 of Rules, 1995. In result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.8.2021 passed by the Managing Director (Disciplinary Authority)/ respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi