Disciplinary proceedings against a superannuated employee can continue if initiated during service, provided due process is followed, and penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

1. With the consent of parties heard both sides.

2. Petitioner is superannuated employee of the respondent, who is aggrieved by order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as well as order dated 20.02.2008 passed by the Respondent No.1/Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal. Due to the impugned orders petitioner is deprived of pensionary benefits, as he was found guilty in the departmental enquiry.

3. Petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer at Latur Circle since 05.10.1999 and was entrusted with rehabilitation work of Earthquake Affected Persons from Osmanabad. He was found to have indulged in misconduct involving financial irregularities. During his tenure, he was issued with charge-sheet vide communication dated 06.11.2000, levelling three charges against him. Reply to the charge-sheet was tendered by him, denying the charges. When the disciplinary action was pending, he attained age of superannuation on 30.11.2001. He was relieved vide order dated 21.11.2001 subject to the decision of departmental enquiry pending against him. First Information Report was also lodged against him and the prosecution was pending till filing of the petition.

4. Inquiring Authority submitted report. Before inflicting punishment, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2006. The explanation was tendered by him on 07.07.2006. By the first impugned order 30.10.2006, punishment was imposed invoking Rule 6, 9 and 10 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 as well as Rule 27 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, (for short “Pension Rules”) withdrawing superannuation pension permanently. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred before Respondent No.1. It was dismissed by last impugned order dated 20.02.2008. Under these facts, petitioner is knocking on the doors of this Court.

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal, for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent. He did not indulge in any misappropriation. Following submissions are also made.

(a) Charges leveled against him are false and he is entitled to exoneration.

(b) There is no material to indicate that petitioner was involved in grave misconduct, negligence causing huge financial loss to public exchequer.

(c) The punishment imposed is totally disproportionate.There were other delinquents also to share the liability.Co-delinquent was issued with penalty of 50% of withdrawal of pension.

(d) There is no sanctity of law to impose penalty of withdrawal of pension, after the superannuation of the petitioner. Independent inquiry should have been conducted as per Rule 27(1).

(e) Without resorting to the procedure under Rule 27 penalty was imposed for the charges which were framed when he was in service. There is violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Reliance is placed on judgments of :

(A) Chairman/Secretary of Institute of Shri Acharya Ratna Deshbhushan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Anr.Vs. Bhughonda B. Patil reported in Bom.C.R. 197

(B) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another in Civil Appeal No. 481 of 1987 decided on25.02.1987.

7. Learned senior counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh, repeals the submission on the basis of affidavit-in-reply in following manner :

(i) The punishment imposed by the authorities, which is under challenge is within purview of Rule 27(1)and with Rule 27(2)(a) of Pension Rules.

(ii) The disciplinary action commenced before the superannuation. After superannuation, show cause notice was given to the petitioner. After extending opportunity to him, punishment was imposed.

(iii) Petitioner is found guilty for serious charges causing loss to the tune of Rs. 2.62 Crores, which is public money. There is material to support misconduct of the petitioner.

(iv) Criminal case is still pending against him. The amount of gratuity and leave encashment are withheld.

8. Having heard both sides, we propose to address three questions: (I) Whether due procedure of law is followed i