Important Points
1. Finding of misconduct of lack of devotion to duty rendered in proceedings under Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules would fall under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules and therefore where though proceedings were initiated under CCS (Conduct) Rules but continued under CCS (Pension) Rules, punishment rendered under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules cannot be faulted at.
2. Definition of misconduct in Rule 8, Explanation (b) is not exhaustive and explanation does not confine to grave misconduct to only the type of misconduct described there.
3. Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules can be invoked not only where pecuniary loss is caused to Government but also where pensioner is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during period of his service.
4. Power to recover pension on ground of pecuniary loss caused is independent power inaddition to power to withhold or withdraw pension.
5. Where an officer deputed to High Commission Office in a foreign country did not return to India after expiry of deputation when he was transferred to India but over stayed abroad without joining duty and became retired punishment of withholding of full pensionary benefit permanently for his misconduct was justified.

Headnote:(i) Service Law - Disciplinary action-Punishment of withholding full pensionary benefit-For grave and serious misconduct.
       (ii) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972-Rules 9 and 8(5)-Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964-Rule 3(i), (ii) & (iii)-Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965-Rule 14-Disciplinary action -Withholding of full pensionary benefit - Justification of - Delinquent Director Grade I posted on deputation at High Commission London-Deputation expired and transferred to Delhi-Representation against transfer rejected-On various pretex of illness of himself and his wife refused to relinguish charge but went on leave-Thereafter reported to duty at London High Commission-Not allowed to resume-Applied for grant of ex- India leave-Rejected-Period of leave regularised and ordered to have relived charge with effect from date of order of transfer-Not returned to India-Inquiry initiated-Charge under Rule 3(i), (ii) & (iii) that grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly and continuously disobeying government orders-Remaining ex parte despite repeated notices-Inquiry Officers finding that misconduct proved, no mitigating circumstances and delinquent purchased house at London at the beginning of his tenure indicating no intention to return Delhi-Exemplary punishment recommended-While so delinquent superannuated -Disciplinary inquiry deemed to be under CCS (Pension) Rules and continued-Disciplinary authority, President of India, in consultation with UPSC imposed punishment of withholding full pensionary benefit permanently-CAT held that there was no finding of grave and serious misconduct an envisaged in Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules as misconduct attributed was contravention of Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules and as such action under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules not valid-Whether correct?-No-Misconduct contemplated in Explanation (b) to Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules not confined to misconduct to only of type described therein-Finding rendered under Rule 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules falls under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules-Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules can be invoked not only where pecuniary loss is caused to Government but also where pensioner is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during period of his service-Power to recover pension on account of pecuniary loss in independent power in addition to power withholding or withdrawing of pension -On facts charge of misconduct has been correctly held to be proved-CAT’s order set aside and punishment confirmed.
       Held : It would not be correct to say that a Government servant who is charged with not maintaining devotion to duty or with conduct unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct would depend upon the nature of the conduct. The Tribunal has wrongly held that because the enquiry was initiated under Rule 3(1) (ii) and (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, the respondent cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct. (Para 7)
       The enquiry was continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules after the date of superannuation of the respondent. The Tribunal is of the view that “grave misconduct” as defined in Rule 8(5) explanation (b) (sic) of the CCS (Pension) Rules has not been committed. Hence no action for grave misconduct can be taken under Rule 9. Now, under Rule 8 pension is subject to future good conduct. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 if the authority considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order, serve upon the pensioner notice as specified therein, take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner; and under sub-clause (4), where the authority competent to pass an order is the President, the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. Sub-rule (5) referred to by the Tribunal does not appear to be relevant in the present case. It deals with appeals from orders passed by an authority other than the President. Under the explanation (b) to Rule 8, the expression ‘grave misconduct’ is defined “to include the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.......” The explanation clearly extends grave misconduct to cover communication of any official secrets. It is not an exhaustive definition. The Tribunal is not right in concluding that the only kind of misconduct which should be held to be grave misconduct is communication etc. of an official secret. There can be many kinds of grave misconduct. The explanation does not confine grave misconduct to only the type of misconduct described there. The relevant Rule in the present case is Rule 9. Learned counsel for the respondent contended before us that Rule 9 can be invoked only if the Government servant has caused any pecuniary loss to the Government. This contention is also unsustainable.
        (Paras 8 & 9)
       Rule 9 gives to the President the right of (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof (2) either permanently or for a specified period and (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power, therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, that loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable. The Tribunal has held that no charge of grave misconduct was framed or found proved against the respondent. This is clearly incorrect looking to the express language of the charge as framed and the enquiry report. The charge as framed expressly charged the respondent with having committed grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty without authorisation and by continuing to disobey Government orders issued to him for joining duty. He was charged with lack of devotion to duty and of conduct unbecoming a Government servant, and this was violative of the provisions of Rule 3(1) sub-clause (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. The finding also is that this charge of grave misconduct has been proved in the enquiry report. The conduct, therefore, of the respondent falls under Rule 9 and the order of the President dated 18th of December, 1984 cannot be faulted. (Paras 10 & 11)
       The Inquiry Officer has come to a conclusion that the respondent wilfully disobeyed Government orders and only gave untenable excuses first, regarding his illness, and thereafter his wife’s illness in order not to join duty. It is also found that the conduct was premeditated and the respondent had already purchased a house at London at the beginning of his tenure indicating that he had no intention at any time of returning to Delhi. In the present case the Inquiry Officer has in these circumstances, come to a finding holding the respondent guilty of grave misconduct. Therefore, looking to the facts of the present case the charge of grave misconduct has been correctly held to be proved and, therefore, the order of 18th of December, 1984 cannot be faulted. (Para 13)

Judgement Key Points

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 respondent, however, purported to go on medical leave. He reported for duty at the High Commission of India in London on 7.2.1979 but he was not allowed to join. Thereafter the respondent applied for grant of ex-India leave for two months with effect from 9.2.1979.

2. By order dated 14.2.1979 the applicant was relieved of his duties as Director (Shipping) in the High Commission with effect from 7.12.1978 and the period of his leave was regularised. He was also informed that his request for ex-India leave for two months had been rejected. The respondent, however, did not return to Delhi nor did he join duty.

3. Under a memorandum dated 9th of June, 1981 the President proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of imputations of misconduct was annexed to the memorandum and the respondent was directed to submit a written statement of his defence and state whether he desired to be heard in person. The articles of charges were to the following effect:-

“The said Shri B. Dev who is a permanent Assistant Director (Gr. I) in DGS & D, and is officiating as Dy. Director from 27.12.1967 onwards, committed grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e. from 10.2.1979 to date and by continuously disobeying the Government orders issued to him for joining duty. His continued unauthorised absence from duty for such a long time and disobeying of Government orders tantamount (sic) to lack of devotion to duty, and to a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

2. Shri B. Dev has thus violated the provision of clauses (ii) and (iii) of Rule 3 (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and rendered himself liable to disciplinary action under CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965.”

A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge was also annexed. These were forwarded to the High Commission at London for service on the respondent. The First Secretary, High Commission of India in London was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Although the charges were served on the respondent and the Inquiry Officer notified to the respondent the date of the proceeding against the respondent, he chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite several reminders. Ultimately an ex parte hearing was held on 4.1.1983. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.1.1983 holding that the charge framed against the respondent of having committed a grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 10.2.1979 till 30.11.1981, the date on which he was to superannuate from government service, and thereby violating clauses (ii) and (iii) of Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, had been proved. The Inquiry Officer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 816

Cases Referred (1)