SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 525

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Pandey – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Allahabad, made on December 2, 1993 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29951 of 1993. The admitted position is that before departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent for embezzlement of Rs. 2,47,779/-, on his attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 1987, he was allowed to retire from service. The departmental proceedings thereafter were initiated against him. FIR was lodged and investigation is stated to be in progress. No such rule to continue the proceedings after retirement as is in vogue in some State or Central Service Pension Rules, is in operation. So the action of departmental proceedings cannot be continued. There would be no impediment to have the investigation into the offences continued. However, when pension was not paid to him it came to be challenged in the High Court in the above writ petition which the High Court has allowed it and has directed to pay the pension. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The only provision brought to our notice is Rule 351-A which reads as under :

"The Governor reserves to himse


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top