Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Braj Mohan Singh Bareth S/o Shri B. D. Bareth – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed in this appeal. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in the matter of challenge to the order dated 08.12.2000, by which the competent authority directed withholding 100% pension of the appellant on the basis of charges of negligence/misconduct in a departmental enquiry, which was initiated before retirement while the appellant/ delinquent employee was in service.
3. Quintessential facts necessary for deciding instant appeal and the legal issues arising for consideration are that while the appellant was continuing in services of State Government as member of RAS (Selection Scale), a charge-sheet was issued to him on 30.03.1993, levelling as many as nine charges. After appointment of Enquiry Officer, the enquiry continued. However, before it could be concluded, the appellant retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.1996. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 31.07.1996. During the period after the date of retirement, the appellant was getting provisional pension from 01.03.1996. The E
The withholding of pension requires a clear finding of grave misconduct or negligence, which must be recorded by the competent authority, not merely inferred from the enquiry report.
Article 351-A of CSR empowers the Governor to institute or continue inquiry after retirement.
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.
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee can continue if initiated during service; defining grave misconduct under pension rules does not require explicit mention in charges, as grave alle....
A government employee's pension can only be reduced for proven grave misconduct, not based solely on isolated allegations, following proper procedural safeguards.
The decision to withhold a pension under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule should be based on future conduct, and if based on past conduct, Rule 43(b) should be invoked instead.
The entire service record must be evaluated before withholding pension; a single instance of irregularity does not justify such action.
The Disciplinary Authority must provide a tentative opinion and an opportunity for hearing before disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Point of law: The Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanentl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
