2026 INSC 16 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10869 OF 2021)

KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T J.K. MAHESHWARI J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2018, disposing-of the writ petition with D G i u g l i s ta h l a ly n s K idg u n m e aid r brA y roeractions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal Date: 2026.01.12 Reason:

against the order of disciplinary authority directing recovery, the instant appeal has been preferred.

3. The issue in the present lis revolves around the institution of the departmental enquiry by the respondent – Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (for brevity, ‘Corporation’) against the appellant after his superannuation in absence of any provision in the governing service rules and regulations, i.e., ‘Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short ‘1982 Pension Rules’)’ and ‘Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 (in short ‘1992 Regulations’)’.

4. The case of the appellant before High Court was that he had superannuated from the service as ‘Storage Superintendent’ on 31.08.2008, whereafter, he was served with a show-cause notice seeking explanation for unresolved railway transportation losses. A charge-sheet was served to him, which was followed by the punishment order, whereby he was held responsible for financial loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/-, directing recovery against him. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ petition inter-alia praying for quashing of show-cause notice as well as the action taken in furtherance thereto. The High Court vide impugned judgment refused to entertain the writ petition and disposed it off with directions to take recourse of appeal specified in the 1992 Regulations. Hence, the present appeal.

FACTS

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts put in brief are that the appellant had joined the Corporation on 04.01.1969 and superannuated on 31.08.2008 as Storage Superintendent. After approximately 11 months, based on the allegations of storage loss and Railway Transit Loss (RTL) to tune of Rs. 22,22,561/- and Rs. 15,20,666/- between March, 2006 to June, 2008 during his tenure as ‘Centre Head’, a show-cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was served to the appellant, inter-alia alleging that on review, increase in storage loss was found from 1% to 5.75% and 6.87% and transportation loss was also much higher than reasonable and expected amounts. The appellant was asked to submit explanation within 10 days, failing which, departmental enquiry would be initiated. Having found the reply of the appellant unsatisfactory, the Corporation alleged that appellant had violated Regulation 74¹(5) and 74²(13) of the 1992 Regulations and served him charge-sheet dated 18.02.2010.

6. Appellant vide letter 06.03.2010 submitted reply and denied the charges, however, he was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 24.03.2011. The appellant appeared and prayed to supply the material documents, on which the next was scheduled on 12.05.2011. The appellant did not appear on the said date on the pretext of non-supply of the documents. The department continued the enquiry and served the second show-cause notice dated 09.11.2012, asking explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the findings of the charges which were found partially proved. Disputing the same, the appellant again submitted a reply, however in vain. The Corporation vide order dated 10.12.2012 held him responsible for the losses to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and consequently, withheld his retiral benefits of Rs. 4,43,013/-, inclusi