The punishment order should strictly adhere to the requirements of the relevant disciplinary rules, and any reduction in pay scale should only apply during the period of employment and not for pension calculation post-retirement.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged an order dated 10th October 2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) dismissing Original Application No.316 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Respondents whereby in calculating the pension of the Petitioner, the punishment imposed by reduction of salary in equivalent grade in 3 stages till the date of the retirement has been reduced for computing last drawn pay.

2. Briefly the facts are as under :

The Petitioner was employed with the Respondents as a Medical Officer, Group-A for the period from 20th December 1978 to 31st August 2008, when he retired. On 20th August 1994, a notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent alleging that the Petitioner is taking Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) and at the same time doing private service. An enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and he was held guilty of the said charge vide enquiry report dated 9th February 1998. On 31st March 2008, an order came to be passed imposing punishment. The operative portion of the punishment reads thus (official translation):

“Therefore, the Non-practising allowance of Rs.36,060/- (Rupees Thirty Six thousand sixty only) received by Dr. R. B. Nirmale, till he was raided by the Vigilance Squad shall be recovered from him before his retirement. Further, the Government has taken decision to impose penalty on him by reducing his salary in equivalent grade, in 3 stages till the date of his retirement. Accordingly, (the order of) the said penalty shall be served upon him.

By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra.”

3. The Respondents recovered from the Petitioner the amount imposed as per the aforesaid punishment order. However, while calculating pension post retirement, same was calculated by reducing the aforesaid withholding of the reduction in pay scale. On 15th November 2017, the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents protesting against the same and requested to re-consider his case by calculating the pension by considering the increment. However, the said representation was not considered favourably and therefore, the Petitioner filed Original Application No.316 of 2021 before the Tribunal alleging improper fixation of pension due to incorrect implementation of punishment order dated 31st March 2008. The Petitioner before the Tribunal sought direction against the Respondents for calculating pension on a pay-scale 32790+5400+25% Non-Practicing Allowance.

4. The parties before the Tribunal filed their respective replies, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder. On 10th October 2022, the Tribunal dismissed the application by upholding the action of the Respondents in calculating the pension amount without considering the three increments. It is on this backdrop that the Petitioner is before us.

5. The Petitioner submits that the punishment order dated 31st March 2008 does not mention that for all times to come his salary is to be brought down by three stages. The punishment order only states that an amount Rs.36,060/- to be recovered before the retirement of the Petitioner and to reduce the pay by three stages till the date of his retirement. The Petitioner submits that in the light of this order, the Respondents were not justified in calculating the pension without restoring the earlier pay scale after retirement post recovery of Rs.36,060/-. The Petitioner relied upon Rule 5 (1) (v) of ‘Discipline & Appeal Rules of 1979’ (D & A Rules) in support of his contentions.

6. Per contra, the Respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that if the interpretation sought to be canvassed by the Petitioner is accepted then the effect of the punishment order would be wiped out. The Respondents therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent