SUJATA V.MANOHAR, S.RAJENDRA BABU
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
B. Dev – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate references:
Proceedings initiated under conduct rules but continued under pension rules can result in penalties such as withholding pension benefits, and such actions are valid if the misconduct is established (!) (!) .
The definition of misconduct in the relevant rules is not limited to the examples provided; misconduct can encompass various types of unbecoming conduct, including communication of official secrets or other serious breaches (!) (!) .
Rule 9 of the pension rules authorizes the withholding or withdrawal of pension and the recovery of pecuniary loss if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service, regardless of whether pecuniary loss was caused (!) (!) .
The power to recover pecuniary loss is independent and in addition to the authority to withhold or withdraw pension benefits (!) .
A government officer's prolonged unauthorized absence and disobedience of orders, especially when accompanied by evidence of premeditation such as purchasing property abroad at the start of tenure, can justify permanent withholding of pension benefits for grave misconduct (!) .
The finding of grave misconduct does not depend solely on the initial initiation of proceedings under conduct rules but also on the evidence of deliberate disobedience, misconduct, and the absence of mitigating circumstances (!) (!) .
The continuation of disciplinary proceedings under pension rules after retirement is valid if misconduct during service is established, and such misconduct can justify penalties under pension rules (!) (!) .
The assessment of misconduct's gravity depends on the nature and circumstances of the conduct; it is not confined to specific types such as communication of secrets but includes various serious breaches of duty and conduct unbecoming a government servant (!) (!) .
Proper procedural steps, including notice and opportunity for representation, are essential before imposing penalties such as withholding pension, especially when considering grave misconduct (!) (!) .
Orders imposing penalties for misconduct, including pension withholding, are subject to judicial review, and findings must be supported by evidence establishing serious misconduct (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.
Judgment
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-The respondent was holding the post of Assistant Director Grade I in the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals with effect from 27.12.1967. He was sent on deputation to the Ministry of External Affairs as Director (Shipping) and was posted at the High Commission of India in London from 18.7.1975 for a period of three years. The period of his deputation expired on 18.7.1978. Thereupon he was informed on 24.10.1978 by the Counsellor (Political and Admn.), High Commission of India, London to make preparation for his departure to New Delhi where he was being transferred with immediate effect. The respondent made representations against his transfer, However, his representations were rejected and he was informed that the Ministry of External Affairs had decided that he should relinquish charge of his office on 15.12.1978. The respondent gave various excuses for not handing over charge. He said that he was suffering from a slip-disc. Then he said that his wife was not well. Ultimately, he also asked for leave. On 27.12.1978, the respondent was informed that he will be deemed to have relinquished charge on the evening of 7.12.1978. The respon
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.