1. Departmental proceedings initiated against a retired employee for financial losses in the absence of specific service rules governing post-retirement enquiries. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan – Appellant
Versus
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2026 (Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10869 of 2021)
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Important Points
Institution of post-retirement disciplinary proceedings is invalid without specific provisions in applicable regulations, necessitating prior government sanction for such proceedings.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES PENSION RULES: R.27, R.27(2)(b), R.27(2)(b)(i), R.27(i)(2)(b)(i), R.9(37)
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Staff Service Regulations: R.110
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Staff Service Regulations: R.110
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 27 - Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 - Jurisdiction - Institution of departmental proceedings against a retired employee in the absence of specific provision is invalid. (Paras 9, 24, 31)
(B) Recovery of financial losses - Lack of legal authority to institute proceedings post-retirement for misconduct without following required procedures. The appeal addresses jurisdiction concerning disciplinary proceedings instituted against a retired employee absent specific provisions in applicable regulations. (Paras 21, 30)
(C) Departmental enquiry requires prior government sanction unless instituted prior to retirement. The case illustrates procedural safeguards protecting retired employees from unwarranted disciplinary action. The court reiterates the need for compliance with established procedural norms. (Paras 19, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a retired Storage Superintendent, faced post-retirement disciplinary proceedings for alleged financial losses without jurisdiction under applicable rules, stemming from events prior to retirement.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, ruling the Corporation lacked authority for initiating departmental proceedings post-retirement and ordered the release of all retiral benefits.
Issues: The primary issues included the jurisdiction of the Corporation to take disciplinary action against the appellant post-retirement and the applicability of relevant rules absent specific provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there was no legal ground for the Corporation to institute proceedings after retirement under specific rules, thereby emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and safeguards against unwarranted actions post-superannuation.
Result: Appeal allowed; departmental proceedings quashed, and all retiral benefits ordered to be restored.
(B) Recovery of financial losses - Lack of legal authority to institute proceedings post-retirement for misconduct without following required procedures. The appeal addresses jurisdiction concerning disciplinary proceedings instituted against a retired employee absent specific provisions in applicable regulations. (Paras 21, 30)
(C) Departmental enquiry requires prior government sanction unless instituted prior to retirement. The case illustrates procedural safeguards protecting retired employees from unwarranted disciplinary action. The court reiterates the need for compliance with established procedural norms. (Paras 19, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a retired Storage Superintendent, faced post-retirement disciplinary proceedings for alleged financial losses without jurisdiction under applicable rules, stemming from events prior to retirement.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, ruling the Corporation lacked authority for initiating departmental proceedings post-retirement and ordered the release of all retiral benefits.
Issues: The primary issues included the jurisdiction of the Corporation to take disciplinary action against the appellant post-retirement and the applicability of relevant rules absent specific provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there was no legal ground for the Corporation to institute proceedings after retirement under specific rules, thereby emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and safeguards against unwarranted actions post-superannuation.
Result: Appeal allowed; departmental proceedings quashed, and all retiral benefits ordered to be restored.
Judgement Key Points
The primary argument in this case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Corporation to initiate and continue disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee without specific provisions in the applicable regulations. The appellant contends that, in the absence of explicit provisions permitting post-retirement disciplinary actions, the Corporation lacked the legal authority to proceed against him after his superannuation. This argument is grounded in the interpretation of the relevant Regulations, particularly Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations, which is of a residuary and general nature, allowing the Corporation to regulate cases where specific provisions are absent, but only to the extent considered appropriate by the Corporation. The appellant emphasizes that this does not extend to creating new jurisdiction or authority where none explicitly exists.
Furthermore, the appellant argues that the reliance on Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules is misplaced because, under clause (b) of that rule, departmental proceedings initiated after retirement require prior sanction of the Government. Since such sanction was not obtained, any proceedings initiated or continued against him post-retirement are invalid. The appellant also highlights that the Rules specify that proceedings not initiated during active service cannot be continued without prior sanction, and any attempt to do so contravenes the procedural safeguards established to protect retired employees from unwarranted disciplinary actions.
On the other hand, the respondent contends that the Corporation had the authority to adopt and apply the Pension Rules, including Rule 27, based on the approval granted by the State Government and the general practice of applying these rules to retired employees. They argue that the Regulations, particularly Rule 110, permit the Corporation to regulate cases in the same manner as government employees, and that such application was within their discretion, especially given the approval received from the Government.
However, the Court's reasoning underscores that the mere approval or general practice does not substitute for a specific, conscious decision or resolution by the Corporation adopting the Pension Rules or explicitly authorizing post-retirement disciplinary proceedings. The mandatory nature of prior sanction, as implied by the language of Rule 27(2)(b)(i), cannot be bypassed under the guise of general approval or practice. The absence of a clear, formal adoption or specific sanction from the competent authority renders the proceedings invalid.
In conclusion, the argument hinges on the interpretation of the applicable Regulations and Rules, emphasizing that without explicit provisions, formal adoption, and prior government sanction, the Corporation lacked the jurisdiction to institute or continue disciplinary proceedings against the retired employee. This interpretation aligns with the principles of procedural fairness and statutory compliance, reinforcing that such proceedings are invalid in the absence of the requisite legal authority.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Ms. Vishwabharati Vitthal Devkhile, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Ms. Vishwabharati Vitthal Devkhile, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether a residuary clause allows adoption of government pension rules to institute post-retirement proceedings and if general regulatory approval constitutes mandatory government sanction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Residuary clauses require conscious adoption of rules; mandatory government sanction for post-retirement proceedings cannot be bypassed by general regulatory approval or general practice. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Post-retirement departmental proceedings cannot be instituted based on a residuary clause without a conscious decision to adopt specific rules or obtaining mandatory government sanction. (Para 20 , 26 , 27 )
5. Appeal allowed; departmental proceedings quashed; direction to release all retiral benefits and refund any recoveries. (Para 30 , 31 )
6. Can a corporation institute departmental proceedings against a retired employee if its service regulations are silent on post-retirement enquiries?
No, in the absence of specific provisions, the corporation lacks jurisdiction unless it has taken a conscious decision to adopt applicable government rules or has the legal authority to do so. (Para 26 , 28 , 30 )
7. Does a residuary clause referring to government rules automatically confer jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary actions against retired employees?
No, a residuary clause is a miscellaneous provision. Government rules do not have ipso facto application until they are adopted or applied through a conscious decision at the appropriate level. (Para 16 , 20 , 26 )
8. Does general government approval of service regulations constitute the mandatory sanction required to institute departmental proceedings against a retired employee?
No, the requirement for government sanction prior to instituting post-retirement proceedings is mandatory for each case to prevent unwarranted actions and cannot be bypassed by general regulatory approval. (Para 27 )
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2018, disposing-of the writ petition with directions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal against the order of disciplinary authority directing recovery, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. The issue in the present lis revolves around the institution of the departmental enquiry by the respondent – Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (for brevity, ‘Corporation’) against the appellant after his superannuation in absence of any provision in the governing service rules and regulations, i.e., ‘Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short ‘1982 Pension Rules’)’ and ‘Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 (in short ‘1992 Regulations’)’.
4. The case of the appellant before High Court was that he had superannuated from the service as ‘Storage Superintendent’ on 31.08.2008, whereafter, he was served with a show-cause notice seeking explanation for unresolved railway transportation losses. A charge-sheet was served to him, which was followed by the punishment order, whereby he was held responsible for financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/-, directing recovery against him. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ petition inter-alia praying for quashing of show-cause notice as well as the action taken in furtherance thereto. The High Court vide impugned judgment refused to entertain the writ petition and disposed it off with directions to take recourse of appeal specified in the 1992 Regulations. Hence, the present appeal.
FACTS
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts put in brief are that the appellant had joined the Corporation on 04.01.1969 and superannuated on 31.08.2008 as Storage Superintendent. After approximately 11 months, based on the allegations of storage loss and Railway Transit Loss (RTL) to tune of Rs. 22,22,561/- and Rs. 15,20,666/- between March, 2006 to June, 2008 during his tenure as ‘Centre Head’, a show-cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was served to the appellant, inter-alia alleging that on review, increase in storage loss was found from 1% to 5.75% and 6.87% and transportation loss was also much higher than reasonable and expected amounts. The appellant was asked to submit explanation within 10 days, failing which, departmental enquiry would be initiated. Having found the reply of the appellant unsatisfactory, the Corporation alleged that appellant had violated Regulation 741(5)1[Acts of misconduct – (5) Causing wilful damage to work in process or to any property of the Corporation.] and 742(13)2[(13) – Indiscipline or breach or flouting of any instructions or orders issued by the Corporation, from time to time regarding working, conduct etc.] of the 1992 Regulations and served him charge-sheet dated 18.02.2010.
6. Appellant vide letter 06.03.2010 submitted reply and denied the charges, however, he was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 24.03.2011. The appellant appeared and prayed to supply the material documents, on which the next was scheduled on 12.05.2011. The appellant did not appear on the said date on the pretext of non-supply of the documents. The department continued the enquiry and served the second show-cause notice dated 09.11.2012, asking explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the findings of the charges which were found partially proved. Disputing the same, the appellant again submitted a reply, however in vain. The Corporation vide order dated 10.12.2012 held him responsible for the losses to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and consequently, withheld his retiral benefits of Rs. 4,43,013/-, inclusive of gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment.
7. The appellant through RTI (right to information) found that
