Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rattan Lal Ticku vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
Serial No. 131
Supplementary List-1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on : 02.04.2026
Uploaded on : 04.04.2026
WP(C) No. 2790/2023
Rattan Lal Ticku
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Rupali Sharma, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K & Ors.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
(02.04.2026)
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present
petition, has challenged order No. 177-JK(IND) of 2023
dated 21.09.2023 whereby the Secretary to the
Government, Industries and Commerce Department,
J&K, has appointed Sh. Inderjeet, JKAS, Managing
Director, J&K SICOP/SIDCO as the Enquiry Officer to
enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner in
terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
Page 1 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
1956(hereinafter referred to as, ‘Rules of 1956’).
Challenge has also been thrown by the petitioner to the
enquiry proceedings emanating from the aforesaid
impugned order.
02. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Store
Officer in the year 1982 in Jammu and Kashmir Small
Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘SICOP’). He served as
Managing Director of SICOP from the year 2012 to
January 2019, whereafter he retired on superannuation
on 31.03.2019.
03. It has been submitted that after retirement of the
petitioner, the impugned order came to be issued by
respondent No. 1 whereby an Enquiry Officer has been
appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the
petitioner by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu as no
criminal offence was made out against the petitioner
during the preliminary verification conducted by the
Vigilance Organization.
04. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order and
the proposed enquiry proceedings on the ground that
after his superannuation, in the absence of any
Page 2 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
ruleproviding for initiation/continuation of enquiry
proceedings against a delinquent employee, the
impugned order could not have been issued. It has been
contended that Rule 33 of Rules of 1956 does not apply
to a person who has ceased to be a member of civil
service. It has also been contended that the punishment
contemplated under Rule 30 of Rules of 1956 cannot be
imposed upon the petitioner because he is no more in
service.
05. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing
their reply to the same. While narrating the background
facts, it has been submitted by the respondents in their
reply that the Director Vigilance, J&K, Srinagar vide his
communication dated 19.07.2017, intimated the General
Administration Department (GAD) that a Joint Surprise
Check (JSC) was initiated based on a source report
alleging that SICOP has become a major conduit for
corruption by the officials of various departments under
the guise of a government run organization. It was
informed that upon Joint Surprise Check, it was found
that numerous fresh appointments were made without
the requisite administrative approval and some engineers
and technical staff were engaged for 89 days without any
advertisement, suggesting a pick-and-choose approach
Page 3 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
favouring certain individuals. The Vigilance Organization
further informed that SICOP lacked a proper system for
selecting suppliers or contractors and such selections
were made without tenders. Thus, as per the report of the
Vigilance Organization, it was established that various
illegal appointments were made by or with the approval of
the then Managing Director-the petitioner herein, in
gross violation of established rules and procedures. A
request was made by the Vigilance Organization vide its
communication supra that Regular Departmental Action
be initiated against the petitioner.
06. It has been further submitted that the GAD vide its O.M.
dated 04.10.2017 forwarded a copy of communication
dated 19.07.2017 of Vigilance Organization along with
connected documents to the Industries and Commerce
Department for consideration of the recommendation of
the Vigilance Organization. The Industries and Commerce
Department vide its communication dated 04.10.2017
forwarded all the material to Managing Director, J&K
SICOP and requested him to furnish further details in the
matter. In response to the same, the Managing Director,
SICOP vide his communication dated 12.03.2018
furnished a report to the Industries and Commerce
Department with the request to close the matter as ‘not
Page 4 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
substantiated’. The said report was forwarded to the
General Administration Department vide communication
dated 29.05.2018.
07. The GAD vide its communication dated 02.08.2018
advised the Industries and Commerce Department to re-
examine the matter in its entirety and get the facts re-
verified. Pursuant to the said advice, the Industries and
Commerce Department vide Memorandum dated
23.10.2018 served the Article of charges along with
statement of imputations to the petitioner and informed
that the Government proposes to hold an inquiry against
him under the J&K CSRs, 1956 with a direction to
submit a written statement in his defence within fifteen
(15) days.However, no response was received from the
petitioner even after affording him sufficient time.
08. Thereafter, the Industries and Commerce Department
vide Government Order No. 153-IND of 2019 dated
22.07.2019 appointed Mr. Rajesh Chander Kotwal, the
then Director Finance, Industries and Commerce
Department, as Enquiry Officer with a request to
complete the enquiry within 21 days and submit the
findings/report. The enquiry officer informed that
because the petitioner had retired from service upon
Page 5 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019, as
such, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner
cannot proceed further.
09. The respondents have further submitted that after
examining the matter, the same was referred to GAD for
further advice. Vide memorandum dated 28.02.2020, the
GAD advised that the Regular Departmental Enquiry
initiated against the petitioner can still be pursued
further in terms of the provisions of Article 168-A of the
J&K CSR, 1956.
10. The respondents have gone on to state that Sh. Suresh
Koul was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide
Government Order dated 25.01.2023 and Mr. Rakesh
Singh Bhau, was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Sh.
Suresh Koul, is stated to have retired from service on
31.07.2023 without completing the enquiry and
subsequently, impugned order dated 21.07.2024 came to
be issued by the Government appointing Sh. Inderjeet,
JKAS, as the Enquiry Officer.
11. After furnishing the detailed background of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the respondents have, in their
reply, sought to justify continuance of the enquiry
Page 6 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
against the petitioner even after his retirement from
service by placing reliance upon Article 168-A of the J&K
Civil Services Regulations, 1956.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of thecase.
13. From a bare perusal of the stand taken by the
respondents in their reply, it can safely be inferred that
respondents do not dispute the legal position that once a
person has retired from service, no departmental enquiry
can be initiated/continued against such person in terms
of Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956.Thus, there is no dispute
to the legal position that in the instant case the petitioner
after having superannuated from service on 31.03.2019
cannot be proceeded against by holding the departmental
enquiry against him in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules of
1956. The only issue that is required to be determined is
as to whether the respondents can take aid of Article
168-A of J&K CSRs, 1956 to continue the proposed
enquiry against the petitioner.
14. In the above context provisions of Article 168-A of J&K
CSR, 1956are required to be noticed. It reads as under :-
Page 7 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
“168-A. The Government reserves to itself the right to order
the recovery from the pension of an officer of any amount
on account of losses found in Judicial or Departmental
proceedings to have been caused to Government by the
negligence or fraud of such officer during his service
provided that-
(a) Such departmental proceedings if not instituted while the
officer was on duty:-
(i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
Government;
(ii) Shall be instituted before the officer’s
retirement from service or within a year from the
date on which he was last on duty, whichever is
latter;
(iii) Shall be in respect of an event which took
place not more than one year before the date on
which the officer was last on duty; and
(iv) Shall be conducted by such authority and in
such places as the Government may direct;
(b) all such departmental proceedings shall be conducted if
the officer concerned so requests in accordance with the
procedure applicable to departmental proceedings on which
an order of dismissal from service may be made; and
(c) such judicial proceedings if not instituted while the
officer was on duty, shall have been instituted in accordance
with sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) above.”
Page 8 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
15. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that
the Government is vested with right to order recovery
from the pension of an officer of any amount on account
of losses found in Judicial or Departmental proceedings
which may have been caused to the Government by the
negligence or fraud of a delinquent employee during his
service subject to the conditions stipulated in the said
provision.
16. The aforesaid provision has fallen for consideration before
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UT of J&K
& Ors. Vs. Qazi Qamer U Din, LPA No. 38/2023,
decided on 19.05.2025. The Division Bench after
noticing the provisions contained in Article 168-A of J&K
CSR, 1956 has interpreted the same in the following
manner :-
“09.The plain reading of Regulation 168-A, clearly suggests
that the Government is empowered to order the recovery
from pension of an officer of any amount, which represents
the losses caused to Government by the negligence or
fraudulent act of such officer during his service. This loss
caused to the Government on account of negligence or
fraud is required to be established either in judicial or
departmental proceedings, such recovery is, however,
subject to the following conditions (i) such departmental
proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty,
shall not be instituted save with the sanction of thePage 9 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952Government; (ii) shall be instituted before the retirement of
such officer from service or within a year from the date on
which he was last on duty, whichever is later; (iii) shall be
in respect of an event which took place not more than one
year before the date on which the officer was last on duty;
and (iv) shall be conducted by such authority and in such
places as the Government may direct. Article 168-A further
provides that all such departmental proceedings leading to
recovery from pension shall be conducted, if the officer
concerned so requests, in accordance with the procedure
applicable to the departmental proceedings on which an
order of dismissal from service may be made.
10. It is, thus, abundantly clear that in terms of Rule 30 of
J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1956, it is not permissible to hold disciplinary
proceedings against the delinquent employee after he has
retired on superannuation and this would be the position
even if the disciplinary proceedings are initiated while such
delinquent employee is in service. However, as provided in
Article 168-A, nothing prevents the Government to hold
departmental proceedings into the conduct of the
officer/official, which has resulted into a financial loss to
the Government. These proceedings, however, would be
limited only to determination of negligence and fraud of the
delinquent employee and the amount to be recovered from
the pension of such employee on account of losses found to
have been caused to the Government by the negligence or
fraudulent act of the delinquent officer. There is, of course,
a caveat to the exercise of this power by the Government
and the caveat is that if the departmental proceedings are
not initiated against the officer while he was on duty, these
proceedings shall not be instituted after his retirementPage 10 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952without sanction of the Government. These proceedings
could be instituted before the officer’s retirement from
service or within a year from the date on which he was last
on duty whichever is later or in respect of an event which
has taken place not more than one year before the date on
which the officer was last on duty. It is, thus, axiomatic that
if the Government fails to institute departmental
proceedings for recovery of the amount on account of losses
found to have been caused to the Government by negligence
or fraud of delinquent officer/official while he was in
service, such proceedings shall not be instituted unless the
conditions laid down in the proviso to Regulation 168-A are
fulfilled.”
17. From the foregoing position of law, as analyzed by the
Division Bench, it is clear that while the Government
reserves the right to hold departmental proceedings into
the conduct of a delinquent official which has resulted in
financial losses, the exercise of such power is subject to
the conditions stipulated in clauses (a) to (c) of Article
168-A of the J&K CSR.
18. Turning to the facts of the present case, as per the Article
of charges served upon the petitioner in respect of which
the enquiry is proposed to be held against him, the
petitioner is alleged to have failed to adhere to the rules
and regulations for making the appointments in SICOP;
he is alleged to have appointed ad-hoc JEs and other
Page 11 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
technical staff randomly by adopting pick-and-choose
method without resorting to advertisement; he is alleged
to have failed to supervise the system of choosing a
supplier or a contractor for a particular financial year; he
is alleged to have maintained silence thereby paving way
for illegal appointments and method of choosing the
suppliers/contractors in SICOP; he is alleged to have
failed to maintain absolute integrity and sincerity in the
discharge of his official duties and he is alleged to have
brought discredit to service by his misdemeanor and
misuse of his official position.
19. A bare look at the allegations leveled against the
petitioner in the Article of Charges would reveal that
there is no allegation with regard to any financial losses
having been caused to the Government by the alleged
conduct of the petitioner. The only allegation against the
petitioner is that he has not adhered to the rules and
procedures while appointing staff in SICOP or while
selecting the suppliers. There is no allegation that the
petitioner has either misappropriated any amount or due
to his action any financial loss has been caused to the
SICOP. Besides this, no judicial or disciplinary enquiry
has been conducted to determine the losses caused to the
Government/SICOP by any act of negligence or
Page 12 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023
2026:JKLHC-JMU:952
misconduct committed by the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the conditions laid down in Article 168-A
of the J&K CSRs, 1956, are not satisfied in the present
case. The respondents therefore, cannot fall back on
Article 168-A of J&K CSRs, 1956, to either initiate or
continue the departmental proceedings against the
petitioner.
20. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, the writ
petition is allowed and the impugned order No. 177-
JK(IND) of 2023 dated 21.09.2023 and the disciplinary
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, as against the
petitioner are quashed.
21. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
02.04.2026
SUNIL
Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes/No
Page 13 of 13WP(C) No. 2790/2023