IMPORTANT POINT
An employee removed from service for misconduct involving moral turpitude is not entitled to pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ROHIT B.DEO, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The petition is preferred seeking the following substantive reliefs :

"(i) Quash and set aside the enquiry report at Annexure-X by holding that the enquiry conducted by the respondent no1-Commissioner, AMC, Amravati on the basis of charge sheet dtd. 28/8/2002 (Annexure-III) is illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice.

(ii) Further hold and declare that the enquiry report submitted by the Sec. enquiry officer dated Nil at Annexure-X as illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

(iii) Quash and set aside the order of removal dated 22/05//2007 issued by the respondent nos.2-Deputy Commissioner (Admin.) Amravati Municipal Corporation at Annexure-XII.

(iv) Direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner along with full back wages from 27/05/2007 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31/08/2010. (v) Further, direct the respondents to release the arrears of pension from 01/09/2010 along with gratuity and interest @ 12% per annum.

(vi) Direct the respondent no.1-Commissioner, Amravati Municipal Corporation to pay amount of GPF and Group Insurance and arrears of 5th Pay Commission to petitioner along with interest @ 12% p.a."

3. While issuing notice, vide order dtd. 28/4/2022, the Coordinate Bench recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the challenge in respect of prayer clauses (i) to (iv) is not pressed, inasmuch as the challenge is hit by delay amounting to latches. In view of the said statement, notice was confined to the submission that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits.

4. Facts are broadly undisputed :

(a) The petitioner was working as Tax Collector on the establishment of the Amravati Municipal Corporation.

(b) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the charge that the petitioner collected the tax amount from the citizens, and instead of depositing the amount of tax, misappropriated the same.

(c) The departmental enquiry culminated in finding of guilt. The charge that the petitioner misappropriated amount of Rs.2,28,999.00 during 1997-98 and 2000-2001, and an amount of Rs.31,000.00 during the period 12/2/2000 and 31/3/2001 was held duly proved.

(d) The petitioner was removed from service vide order dtd. 22/5/2007. (e) It appears that the petitioner was also prosecuted and the prosecution culminated in acquittal. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was acquitted for offences punishable under Ss. 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dtd. 12/10/2017.

(f) Be that as it may, the acquittal is of no relevance insofar as the issue which is involved in the petition is concerned.

5. We heard Mr. Meghe for some time on 21/2/2023 and indicated that since the petitioner is removed from service on the charge of misappropriation, the submission that the petitioner is nonetheless entitled to pension appears to be farfetched. Mr. Meghe responded with the statement that he would persuade us to change our prima facie view.

6. It is not in dispute that the rules which are applicable are the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Rules). Mr. Meghe invites our attention to Rule 19 to buttress the submission that there is a fundamental difference between removal and dismissal. We may extract Rule 19 verbatim, as under :

"Rule 19 : Removal or compulsory retirement from service for misconduct insolvency or inefficiency : A competent authority may remove any Government servant subject to these rules from Government service, or may require him to retire from it, on the ground of misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency : Provided that before any such order is issued, the procedure referred to in rules 8 to 15 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, shall be followed : Note 1 - In the case of police Officers of Subordinate ranks a competent authority in the Police Department can exercise his di