Judgment 1. The Chennai Port Trust initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellants after their retirement. The appellants challenged the proceedings before the Writ Court primarily on the ground that proceedings would not lie after retirement of employees in respect of an event which took place more than four years before institution of such proceedings. The writ court taking into account the prior proceedings and enquiry conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) opined that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and as such the same should be raised before the disciplinary authority. Feeling aggrieved by the common order dated 10 April 2014, the appellants are before this Court. 2. The appellant served in various capacities in Chennai Port Trust and ultimately retired as Superintending Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 April 2004. The Chennai Port Trust long after his retirement and more particularly on 16 September 2008 issued a charge memo with respect to an incident which is stated to have taken place from 22 October 2002 to 18 February 2004 (Charge No.1) and from 7 August 2000 to 5 June 2003 (Charge No.2). The appellant submitted reply to the charge memo. The appellant after receiving the enquiry notice filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4449 of 2011 with a prayer to quash the proceedings on the ground of limitation. W.A.No.594 of 2014: 3. The appellant joined the services of Chennai Port Trust as an Engineer (Marine) in 1979. He was promoted from time to time and ultimately he became the Chief Mechanical Engineer in 2001. The appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 June 2004. The Chennai Port Trust issued a charge memo to the appellant containing two charges. Both the charges relate to the period more than four years before initiating the proceedings. The charge memo contained allegations that during the period from 21 June 2001 to 30 June 2004 the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he permitted M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., to use the plot allotted by Chennai Port Trust earlier without any specific allotment order. The charge memo contained allegations that during the period from 21 June 2001 to 30 June 2004 the appellant failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he permitted M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., to use the plot allotted by Chennai Port Trust earlier without any specific allotment order. The appellant submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo and thereafter he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4450 of 2011 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings would not lie against him on account of delay and more particularly on account of Regulation 56(ii)(b) of Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "MPT Regulations") which provides that proceedings shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. Defense: 4. Before the Writ Court, Chennai Port Trust filed a counter affidavit through its Deputy Chairman. The Chennai Port Trust in its counter affidavit contended that the event in question continued upto the end of September 2004 and as such proceedings were initiated within the period of limitation. 5. The learned Single Judge considered the factual matrix in the light of the prior proceedings including registration of First Information Report by Central Bureau of Investigation and the resultant investigation. The learned Single Judge also found that action was taken pursuant to the direction given by the Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the issue regarding limitation could be raised before the Disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge granted liberty to the appellants to raise all contentions including the plea of limitation during the course of enquiry. 6. The common order dated 10 April 2014 is challenged in these intra court appeals on the ground that the enquiry proceedings are barred by limitation. Submissions: 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on Regulation 56 of the MPT Regulations and more particularly sub clause (ii) (b) contended that only in case the event took place not more than four years, Chennai Port Trust would be having authority to initiate proceedings against the pensioners. According to the learned Senior Counsel the appellant in W.A.No.593 of 2014 retired on 30 April 2004. Similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.594 of 202014 retired on 30 June 2004. According to the learned Senior Counsel the appellant in W.A.No.593 of 2014 retired on 30 April 2004. Similarly, the appellant in W.A.No.594 of 202014 retired on 30 June 2004. The learned Senior Counsel contended that even if the date of retirement is taken as the date on which the incident took place, still, the proceedings are barred by limitation inasmuch as only on 16 September 2008 charge memo was issued to the appellants. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Panday (1996) 9 SCC 395 and Bombay High Court in N. Seshagiri Rao v. Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd., & Anr. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for Chennai Port Trust contended that the appellants favoured two companies and permitted them to occupy the Port Trust land without executing any agreement. The concerned Companies resisted the action for recovery of rent on the ground that there was no agreement. According to the learned Counsel, the background facts should be considered while taking a decision as to whether charge memo was barred by limitation. Analysis: 9. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.593 of 2014 functioned as Superintending Engineer as on the date on which the event relating to the charge memo took place. Similarly, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.594 of 2014 functioned as Chief Mechanical Engineer. While the concerned appellants were functioning as Superintending Engineer and Chief Mechanical Engineer respectively, the CBI on receipt of information that these officers indulged in acts of Corruption by way of non collecting the way leave charges and thereby caused loss to Chennai Port Trust, conducted joint surprise check on 21 April 2004. The CBI after holding preliminary enquiry lodged the First Information Report against the appellants on 28 September 2004. The appellants herein during the course of investigation by CBI retired on 30 April 2004 and 30 June 2004 respectively. 10. The CBI verified the records maintained by the Port Trust relating to the transactions that took place while the appellants were in office and more particularly involving the companies by name M/s. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited and M/s.MSPL Hospect and M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., and submitted its finding to Chennai Port Trust. 11. The CBI forwarded a copy of the First Information Report to the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. 11. The CBI forwarded a copy of the First Information Report to the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi. The Ministry of Shipping on receipt of report, vide its letter dated 4 October 2004, called upon Chennai Port Trust to intimate whether departmental proceedings have already been initiated against the appellants. The Chennai Port Trust found that before initiating departmental proceedings, First Stage Advice should be obtained from the Central Vigilance Commission as provided in O.M.No.4K-DSP-17 dated 2 September 1993. The Chennai Port Trust vide its letter dated 22 December 2004 requested the Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi to give its advice in the matter. 12. The Central Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 10 January 2005 called upon Chennai Port Trust to forward its specific recommendations with regard to the action to be initiated against the appellants. Since Chennai Port Trust failed to submit the required information within a reasonable time, the Central Vigilance Commission called upon them to furnish comments/recommendations with regard to the action to be initiated against the appellants without delay. The Central Vigilance Commission made it clear that the Commission would view the delay caused by Port Trust seriously. The Chennai Port Trust sent a letter to the Central Vigilance Commission on 21 April 2005 giving particulars and pointing out the statutory provision under the Pension Regulations. 13. The Central Vigilance Commission vide office memorandum dated 19 May 2005 granted permission to Chennai Port Trust to initiate major penalty proceedings against the appellants. The Ministry of Shipping vide letter dated 30 May 2005 called upon Chennai Port Trust to initiate proceedings immediately against the appellants. 14. The disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant in W.A.No.543 of 2014 is the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust. The authority to initiate action in respect of the appellant in W.A.No.594 of 2014 is the Ministry of Shipping. 15. Chapter X of the Vigilance Manual contained a provision regarding "common proceedings". Clause 28 of the Vigilance Manual provides that where two or more Government Servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all the accused Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them be taken in a common proceeding. Clause 28 of the Vigilance Manual provides that where two or more Government Servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all the accused Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them be taken in a common proceeding. It further provides that if the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on such Government Servants are different, an order for common proceedings may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the other. Since two disciplinary authorities are involved in the matter, Port Trust sought advice from the Ministry of Shipping. 16. The Ministry of Shipping vide order dated 19 August 2008 granted approval to initiate regular disciplinary proceedings for major penalty against the appellants. The Chennai Port Trust for reasons best known kept the file pending and ultimately issued charge memos on 16 September 2008. 17. The appellants are placing reliance on Rule 56 sub clause (ii) (b) of the Pension Regulations and the judgments in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Panday (1996) 9 SCC 395 and N. Seshagiri Rao v. Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., & Anr. 18. There is no dispute that sub-clause (b) of Regulation 56 provides that only in respect of an event that took place not more than four years, departmental proceedings could be initiated against retired employees of Port Trust. 19. Similar provision was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Panday (1996) 9 SCC 395 . The Supreme Court in Shri Krishna Panday found that the concerned officer had retired on 31 March 1987. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated only on 21 April 1991. The Supreme Court observed that the embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place more than four years from the date of his retirement. In the said circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the view taken by Allahabad High Court that the departmental proceedings is barred by limitation and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 20. The Supreme Court observed that the embezzlement which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place more than four years from the date of his retirement. In the said circumstances, the Supreme Court upheld the view taken by Allahabad High Court that the departmental proceedings is barred by limitation and dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 20. The question that arises for consideration here is whether by the term 'initiation', the date of issuance of the charge memo alone would count or whether the prior proceedings relating to initiation of proceedings should also be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the lapse of four years from the date on which the event relating to the misconduct had taken place. 21. The proceedings against the appellants actually commenced with the joint inspection by CBI and vigilance officials on 8 April 2004. The CBI registered the First Information Report on 28 September 2004 against both the appellants. The CBI thereafter submitted a report to the Ministry of Shipping. The Central Vigilance Commission permitted Chennai Port Trust to initiate proceedings vide its order dated 19 May 2005. Subsequently, Ministry of Shipping which is the disciplinary authority in respect of the appellant in W.A.No.594 of 2014 directed the Port Trust to initiate disciplinary proceedings against both the appellants. The said order was issued on 19 August 2008. 22. It is true that even thereafter Chennai Port Trust took nearly one month to issue charge memo to the appellants. There was a deliberate attempt on the part of the officials of Chennai Port Trust to delay the matter for reasons best known to them. In fact the Central Vigilance Commission warned Chennai Port Trust that the delay on its part would be viewed very seriously and only thereafter even relevant information was furnished to the Commission. The appellants are now taking advantage of the situation created by the Port Trust. 23. In fact the Central Vigilance Commission warned Chennai Port Trust that the delay on its part would be viewed very seriously and only thereafter even relevant information was furnished to the Commission. The appellants are now taking advantage of the situation created by the Port Trust. 23. Regulation 56(ii)(b) reads thus: Short facts: W.A.No.593 of 2014 Right to withhold or withdraw pension: The Chairman 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 the Board, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement; Provided that ... Provided further that – (i) ......... (ii) ............ (a) .............. (b) Shall not be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings, 24. Since the above quoted provision shows that only in respect of the event which took place not more than four years disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the retired employees, the issue revolves on the ambit and scope of the word "before institution of such proceedings". The appellants wanted us to interpret the provision as if institution of proceedings would mean only the date of issuance of charge memo. However, we are not inclined to take such a restricted view for more than one reason. 25. The term "institution of disciplinary proceedings" would mean culmination of all prior proceedings, resulting in issuing a charge memo. It would include proceedings right from verification of records, obtaining sanction from the competent authority and all other procedural requirements and not merely the issuance of charge memo. Initiation is a continuous process and it would end by issuing charge memo. The date of actual initiation of proceeding alone is relevant to decide the question of limitation. 26. In the subject case the incident in question took place during the period from 21 June 2001 and 30 June 2004. The Central Vigilance Commission granted permission as early as on 19 May 2005 to initiate proceedings against the appellants. The Port Trust thereafter initiated proceedings to obtain permission from the competent authority. 26. In the subject case the incident in question took place during the period from 21 June 2001 and 30 June 2004. The Central Vigilance Commission granted permission as early as on 19 May 2005 to initiate proceedings against the appellants. The Port Trust thereafter initiated proceedings to obtain permission from the competent authority. Therefore it is clear that proceedings were initiated within the statutory period. The fact that charge memo was issued on 16 September 2008 would not go to show that disciplinary proceedings were initiated only on the said date. The appellants are under a misconception that the date of issuance of charge memo alone would count for the purpose of calculating the statutory period. 27. We make the position clear that date of issuance of charge memo is immaterial. The actual date of initiation of proceedings relating to the issuance of charge memo alone is relevant. In case the records produced by the disciplinary authority contain materials to show that proceedings were initiated before the expiry of the statutory period, there is no question of quashing such proceedings solely on the ground that charge memo was issued beyond the period of limitation. Each case should be decided on the facts and circumstances, taking into account the prior proceedings culminated in issuing charge memo. Conclusion: 28. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings in the matter was well within the four years period. It was only the issuance of charge memo which was delayed. Since proceedings were initiated even before the retirement of appellants, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed on account of the actual issuance of formal charge memo beyond the statutory period. We therefore do not find any merit in the contention taken by the appellants. 29. In view of the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the intra court appeals. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. No costs.