Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJ
BIRENDRA SINGH KUNWAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (R) AND ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-1414/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Birendra Singh Kunwar (In person)
For the Respondents: Arti Bansal
Pension can be withheld only for grave misconduct causing pecuniary loss; absence of concealment and prior departmental knowledge preclude such finding under Rule 9 CCS (Pension) Rules.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rules 8 and 9 - Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension - Penalty of permanently withholding 50% monthly pension and gratuity - Requirement of grave misconduct or negligence causing pecuniary loss - Absence of pecuniary loss and lack of concealment by employee negate finding of grave misconduct. (Paras 28-36)
(B) Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) - Misconduct - Disclosure of live-in relationship and family details - Prior knowledge of the department - Transparency in service records - Actions of employee not amounting to grave misconduct. (Paras 30-32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government servant, married in 1981; his wife deserted him in 1983. He subsequently cohabited with another woman from 1983 and had two children. In 1994, departmental proceedings for neglect of legal wife resulted in a major penalty. In 2008, while being considered for an overseas assignment, he sought inclusion of his live-in partner and children in service records and obtained diplomatic passports for them. A second disciplinary inquiry was initiated in 2011 for misrepresentation and lack of integrity. The inquiry officer found charges I & II not proved; the disciplinary authority disagreed and, after UPSC consultation, imposed a penalty of withholding 50% pension and gratuity. The Tribunal upheld the penalty. The High Court set aside the orders.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner had consistently disclosed his relationship with his live-in partner; the department was fully aware from the earlier proceedings. No concealment or mala fide intention was established. The action did not constitute grave misconduct or cause pecuniary loss to the government. The penalty under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules was unjustified.
Issues: Whether the respondents were justified in imposing the penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the petitioner’s monthly pension and gratuity? Whether the petitioner’s actions amounted to grave misconduct warranting such penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: A government servant’s pension can be withheld or reduced only if he is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence that caused pecuniary loss to the government. Transparency and prior departmental knowledge of the employee’s personal circumstances preclude a finding of grave misconduct. The petitioner’s consistent disclosure and the department’s awareness negated any element of fraud or lack of integrity. Result : Petition allowed. Impugned order of the Tribunal and penalty order set aside. Respondents directed to release full pension and gratuity with 6% interest from the due date and to consider inclusion of the live-in partner and children for family pension and CGHS facilities.
J U D G M E N T
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the Order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 202/2018, titled Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India through Secretary (R) & Anr., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A., observing as under:
“14. It is also well settled that there is no bar in continuance of the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the Government servant for imposing the punishment as contemplated under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Forest Department vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, AIR 2009 SC 2925).”
15. Having regard to the aforesaid legal positions, now this Court will examine the issue involved in this case. As it is an admitted position that the applicant, while filling a proforma to be submitted at his headquarter had mentioned the name of Ms. Manihal Devi as his wife whereas as per the records, his wife's name is Ms. Suman and the marriage of the applicant with Ms. Suman still subsists as there was no legal divorce nor dissolution of marriage between them and further the applicant applied for passports by mentioning his live-in companion Ms. Manihal Devi as his wife and two children born out of his cohabiting with Ms. Manihal Devi as his dependent family members and the applicant managed to obtain diplomatic passports fraudulently in respect of the said woman and her two children with the malafide intention of taking them with him abroad in place of his legally wedded wife and legal children, although the applicant tried to justify his act by referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments on the issue of live-in relation as well as certain communications made with the departments, as stated in the OA. But the aforesaid admitted facts cannot said to be justified on the said grounds until and unless the same is supported by law or rules on the subject and the law of the land with regard to Government servant is that Government servant cannot do any bigamous act, as the same is a grave/gross misconduct. The applicant himself admitted that his marriage with his legally wedded wife still subsist as there is no divorce/dissolution of same till date. Hence, as he is bound by Government rules, he was correctly proceeded against and we are also in full agreement with the contentions raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure A-1) and found that there is no illegality in the said Order. Rather the same is a very detailed order in which each and every
aspect of the issues involved in this case have been clearly spelt out.
16. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order and accordingly, the present OA is dismissed, being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Field Officer (‘DFO’) (General Duty) in the Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat on 20.09.1976. He married Ms. Suman Kunwar on 11.12.1981, and a daughter was also born out of this wedlock on 18.09.1982. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1983, his wife, Ms. Suman deserted him and refused to grant him a divorce, since then she has been absent from his life.
3. In September 1983, during the subsistence of his marriage with Ms. Suman, the petitioner started cohabiting with one Ms. Manihal Devi, and two children, a son (born on 30.05.1984) and a daughter (born on 30.09.1985), were born from their relationship.
4. Pursuant to a complaint filed by Ms. Suman in June 1990, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with anoth
