Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. Shinde, V.K. Jadhav, JJ.
Abdul Mannan s/o Abdul Raouf Farooqui - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in Revenue and Forest Department & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1741 of 2016
Decided On : 02-05-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar
For the Respondent/State: Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
The measure of deprivation of pension must be commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularities, and the withholding of pension under Rule 27(1) of the Pension Rules, 1982, is justified based on the charges proved against the petitioner.
Headnote:
Pension Rules - Challenge to withholding of pension - Rule 27(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 27(1) and Rule 27(5) of the Pension Rules, the power of the Government to withhold or withdraw pension, and the circumstances in which such an order can be passed. The court emphasized that the employee's right to pension being a statutory right, the measure of deprivation must be commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularities. The court found that the charges proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry spoke about grave misconduct on his part during the period of his service, justifying the withholding of pension under Rule 27(1) of the Pension Rules, 1982.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Range Forest Officer, challenged the withholding of his pension after being found guilty of charges of grave misconduct during his service. The petitioner contended that the order was contrary to the Pension Rules and that the Tribunal did not consider certain points raised by him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry spoke about grave misconduct on his part during the period of his service, justifying the withholding of pension under Rule 27(1) of the Pension Rules, 1982. The court also noted that the charges in the criminal case were not exactly identical to the charges proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of withholding the petitioner's pension under Rule 27(1) of the Pension Rules, 1982, and the consideration of the charges in the criminal case in relation to the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withholding of the petitioner's pension was justified under Rule 27(1) of the Pension Rules, 1982, based on the gravity of the grave misconduct proved against the petitioner during his service. The court also emphasized that the charges in the criminal case were not exactly identical to the charges proved against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The Writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
V.K. Jadhav, J.
By consent of the parties, heard finally at admission stage.
2. By way of this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Original Application No. 75 of 2005, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected.
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are as follows:
(a) The petitioner, way back in the year 1968, joined his services as a Range Forest Officer at Divisional Forest Office, Thane Circle, and came to be appointed at Mandvi Range, Vasai, District Thane. On 09.07.1990, when he was serving at Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana, he was served with a suspension order passed by respondent No.2 under Rule 4(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979. On or about 30.12.1990, respondent No.2 had initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner and in all four charges were levelled against him. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that, petitioner is guilty of charges at serial Nos. 1 and 2, and was exonerated from the charges at serial Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.1, by order dated 11.10.2004, has withdrawn/withheld 100% of the petitioner's pension amount for the misconduct committed by him during the tenure of service.
(b) Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner challenged the said order dated 11.10.2004 passed by respondent No.1 by filing Original Application No.75 of 2005 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. The Tribunal, by impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2015, dismissed the Original Application. Hence this Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submissions:
(A) It is mentioned in the order passed by Respondent No.1, that 100% pension of the petitioner is withheld/withdrawn permanently as per Rule 27(5)(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short “the Pension Rules”). If the said provision is perused, it reveals that the order dated 11.10.2004 is contrary to the said provision. The Tribunal has not at all considered the points raised by the petitioner. There is apparent and manifest error committed by the respondent while passing the order impugned in the Original Application. Even the enquiry officer suggested for inflicting minor penalty as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (for short “Discipline and Appeal Rules”) by way of withholding three increments of the petitioner, whereas, respondent No.1, instead of withholding three increments of the petitioner, by order dated 11.10.2004, which is impugned in the Original Application before the Tribunal, has withdrawn/withheld 100% of the pension amount of the petitioner. Though aforesaid point was urged before the Tribunal, the same is not at all discoursed in the entire judgment delivered on 27.11.2015.
(B) By filing rejoinder in the Original Application before the Tribunal, petitioner contended that the order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deulgaon Raja against the petitioner in Regular Criminal Case No. 861 of 1992 arising out of the same instance, was quashed and set aside by the judgment and order dated 27.06.2005, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2001. Learned counsel submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the said criminal case, more particularly, point nos. 4 and 5, are exactly similar to the two minor charges on which the petitioner is held guilty by the enquiry officer in the disciplinary enquiry. However, the Tribunal has not considered the same. The findings in the disciplinary enquiry regarding holding the petitioner guilty of minor charges at serial Nos. 1 and 2, is perverse. The other two charges, in which the petitio
