1985 Supreme(MP) 230

V. D. Gyani, J.
Krishanshankar v. Government of M. P.
M. P. No. 229 of 1982 (I); Decided on 29-3-1985.

Headnote:(1) Civil Services -- pension and gratuity -- are rights of Government servant -- undue delay in payment -- gives rise to claim interest.

        (2) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- Rr. 9 and 43 -- provisions under -- do not authorise employer to initiate departmental enquiry after retirement.

        (3) Civil Services -- departmental enquiry -- cannot be instituted after retirement.

        By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the action on the part of the respondents in instituting and continuing with a departmental enquiry after the petitioners retirement from service.

        It is an admitted fact that the enquiry in the petitioners case has been instituted after the retirement of the petitioner, although it is sought to be justified on the ground that the relevant papers were lying with the vigilance department and, therefore, the enquiry could not be instituted.

        Held : Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State contended that in view of Rule 43 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, provides a justification for institution of such departmental proceedings and for adjustment of the amount alleged to be embezzled or misappropriated by the petitioner from the amounts due as pension or gratuity. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on Rules 9 and 64 of the M. P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. These rules relate to the quantification of the amount of pension. The point involved in this petition is whether after retirement of a Government servant can departmental action be instituted against him? Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on, Shelat B. J. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1978 S.C. page 1109), submitted that no sooner a Government servant retires from service, the employer, ceases to have any jurisdiction over him so as to entitle the employer to initiate or institute departmental proceedings. The law on the point is now well-settled. In such circumstances and in view of the admitted position of fact that departmental proceedings have been instituted after the retirement of the petitioner, there is no justification for either institution or continuation with the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner. Such proceedings are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

        Rule 9 of the Rules itself speaks of any misconduct, negligence during the period of his service and it can only be invoked after due consultation with the State Public Service Commission which is not the Case of the respondents that the State Public Service Commission in the matter has in fact been consulted and the Commission has recommended for any such deduction. Similarly, Rule 64 of the said Rules in turn refers to subd`rule (4) of R. 9 and subd`rule (4) of Rule 9 pertains to a Government Servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under subd`rule (2). In the instant case there is no judicial proceedings as such. So far as the question of departmental proceeding is concerned, it has been instituted after the retirement of the petitioner. Subd`rule (2) of Rule 9 refers to departmental proceedings while the Government servant was still in service or after retirement is in re-employment. There is no question of re-employment in the petitioners case. Subd`rule (2) of Rule 9 is attracted only when a delinquent servant is in service, either before his retirement or during his re-employment after retirement. Therefore, these rules have no application to the facts in the instant case. Rule 43 (5) of the Rules prescribes the amount of pension, which is to be fixed at monthly rates. This dispute does not arise in the instant case as the petitioner does not seek a relief with regard to the amount of pension payable to him. What is prayed for as relief by this Court is merely quashing of the departmental proceedings and as has been held above, the departmental proceedings are quashed. The respondents are directed to pay all arrears of pension and continue to pay the petitioner his pension each month, fixing the amount in accordance with law. It is need-less to add that pension and gratuity have now been recognised as rights of a Government servant. In case there is undue delay in the matter of payment, the petitioner can claim interest on the amount so due. ALR 1978 SC 1109 followed. Petition allowed.