Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 616
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Tarun Chatterjee & Hrishikesh Banerji, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
vs.
Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee
W.P.S.T. No. 486 of 2000
Decided On : September 21, 2001
Advocate Appeared:
Nigam Kumar Chakraborty, D.N. Ray for the appellant
Somen Bose, Murari Mohan Das, Jagat Chandra Basu for the respondent.
The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension, in whole or in part, from a pensioner who was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, even after his retirement.
Headnote:
PENSION - WITHHOLDING - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - LIMITATION - SANCTION OF GOVERNOR - GRAVE MISCONDUCT OR NEGLIGENCE - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW OR WITHHOLD PENSION - RULE 10 OF THE WEST BENGAL SERVICES (DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFITS) RULES, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, was found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry and his pension was reduced by 50% with retrospective effect. He challenged the order on the ground that the departmental proceedings were initiated after his retirement and without the sanction of the Governor, and that Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971, which provides for withholding of pension, was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 10 of the Rules was constitutional and that it empowered the State Government to withhold or withdraw pension, in whole or in part, from a pensioner who was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, even after his retirement. The court also held that the departmental proceedings were properly initiated with the sanction of the Governor and within the limitation period prescribed in the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971, is unconstitutional? 2. Whether the State Government can withhold or withdraw pension from a pensioner who was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, even after his retirement? 3. Whether the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were properly initiated with the sanction of the Governor and within the limitation period prescribed in the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 10 of the Rules is constitutional and empowers the State Government to withhold or withdraw pension, in whole or in part, from a pensioner who was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, even after his retirement. 2. The State Government can withhold or withdraw pension from a pensioner who was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, even after his retirement. 3. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner were properly initiated with the sanction of the Governor and within the limitation period prescribed in the Rules.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and allowed the writ application. The order of the Governor withholding pension was affirmed.
Tarun Chatterjee, J.: This writ petition is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 15th, September, 1999 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (In short "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal held that the writ petitioners had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in reducing the pension payable to the respondent on the basis of an order dated 25th of November, 1995 and hence the order of reduction of pension was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal also held that the pension amount deducted be restored to the private respondent and all amounts due with other relief as was admissible under the Rules be paid to the private respondent within three months from the date of communication of the order of the Tribunal by the writ petitioners. The case of the private respondent in the petition filed before the Tribunal, inter alia, was that the private respondent was superannuated from service as Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., West Bengal on 1st of March, 1982. By a Memorandum of the Home Department, Govt. of West Bengal, dated 30th January, 1984 a disciplinary proceeding was drawn against the private respondent on the following Articles of Charges:
"Article of Charge-I. The said Shri Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee, Dy. Supdt. of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, W.B. (since retired) while functioning as the Chief Law Instructor-I, Police Training College, Barrackpore during the period from 16.5.71 (forenoon) to 2.6.81 demanded on 9.10.80 in the evening at his official quarters from Cadet Sub-Inspector, Shri Subrata Baran Sen a sum of Rs. 6000/- on a false plea that the said amount would be necessary to place the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Training) and for making necessary arrangements for his passing and also for the passing of Cadet Sub-Inspector, Md. Rahim and Cadet Sergeant Shri Swapan Roy in the Department Examination and for getting them released from the detention and that pursuant thereto accepted from the said Shri Subrata Baran Sen a sum of Rs. 6000/- on 13.10.80 in the evening at his quarters (official quarters of Chief Law Inspector- I, Police Training College, Barrackpore).
Such conduct of Shri Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee prima facie shows lack of integrity and devotion to duty and is improper and unbecoming of a public servant and as such is violative of Rules 3 & 4 of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 read with Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980.
Article of Charge-II. Shri Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, West Bengal (since retired) while functioning as the Chief Law Inspector-I during the period from 16.5.71 (forenoon) to 2.6.81 further attempted to obtain by way of demanding a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as legal (sic) gratification from Cadet Sub-Inspector, Shri Subrata Baran Sen on the date of condolence meeting of Late P.K. Bose, the then Dy. Inspector General of Police (Training) held at Police Training College soon after re-opening of the College after the Pooja holidays in the year 1980, on the pretext that the said amount would be necessary to please the succeeding Dy. Inspector General of Police (Training).
Such conduct of Shri Gobinda Chandra Mukherjee prima facie shows lack of integrity and devotion to duty and is improper and unbecoming of a public servant and as such is violative of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 read with Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Government Employees) Rules, 1980."
2. An enquiry was made by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal into the aforesaid charges framed against the private respondent after complying with all the formalities. After conclusion of the enquiry the private respondent was found guilty of both the charges. In accordance with
