Full Judgment Text
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.
Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by
2.
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
directions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal
1
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
2
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
3
1 2
violated Regulation 74 (5) and 74 (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/-, inclusive of
gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment.
1 Acts of misconduct – (5) Causing wilful damage to work in process or to any property of
the Corporation.
2 (13) – Indiscipline or breach or flouting of any instructions or orders issued by the
Corporation, from time to time regarding working, conduct etc.
4
7. The appellant through RTI (right to information) found that
the RTL was reduced to Rs. 2,46,461/-, however, on further
contest, the appellant sought release of his retiral benefits. The
Corporation served him with the third show-cause notice dated
20.10.2016 seeking explanation as to why he should not be held
responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of
Rs. 3,70,820/- and why such be not recovered from him. Finally,
the Corporation vide punishment order dated 04.03.2017 found
the appellant guilty and responsible for the financial losses to the
tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and directed recovery. Out of said
amount, the Corporation withheld the retiral benefits of the
appellant of Rs. 4,43,013/-, and the remaining dues of Rs.
13,66,796/- were directed to be recovered.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 10858 of
2018 seeking following reliefs:-
“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus and be pleased to quash and
set aside the enquiry and the action, if any, taken
pursuant to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2009;
b. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
th
the communication dated 4 March, 2017 and further be
5
pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay to the
petitioner all the retiral benefits such as provident fund,
th
gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 6 Pay Commission
etc. with interest till realization of the amount;
c. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
the impugned show cause notice dated 20.10.2016 issued
by the General Manager (QC) of respondent no. 1;
d. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
the respondents be forthwith directed to pay this petitioner
all the retiral benefits such as provident fund, gratuity,
leave encashment etc. with interest till realization of the
amount;
xx xx xx
9. In the backdrop of the facts, the appellant posed the issue of
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against
him after his superannuation by the Corporation in absence of
having any provisions in the 1992 Regulations. It was said, he
was neither placed under suspension, nor any enquiry was
pending against at the time of superannuation. On the contrary,
3
it was the case of the Corporation that in terms of Rule 110 of
the 1992 Regulations, in cases for which specific provision has
4
not been made, the Corporation can proceed under Rule 27 of
1982 Pension Rules. By impugned judgment, the High Court
3 Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Government of Maharashtra.
4
Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.
6
accepted the contention of the Corporation and said that though
there is no specific provision in the 1992 Regulations for
institution of the departmental proceedings post superannuation,
however, instituting proceedings against the retired employee,
with the aid of Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules can be done in
terms of Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations. On the question of
withholding the retiral benefits, since his service was not
pensionable, it was concluded, as per Rule 9(37) of 1982 Pension
Rules, ‘pension’ includes ‘gratuity’ and hence, the Corporation
was entitled to withhold only gratuity and no other retiral
benefits like provident fund, leave encashment and insurance.
Lastly, considering the remedy of appeal in the 1992 Regulations,
the High Court refrained to delve into the merit and disposed the
writ petition granting liberty to the appellant to challenge the
order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority.
Hence, the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENTS
10. Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Corporation at the very inception lacked the
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings. Rule 110
7
of the 1992 Regulations deals the contingencies for which a
specific provision in the Regulations has not been made. It is in
the nature of residuary clause (or mere a referral clause), which
equips the Corporation to regulate the matters as far as possible
alike retired ‘employees’ of Government of Maharashtra. It does
not confer jurisdiction to make out a new case for carrying out
departmental enquiry against retired employees of the
corporation.
11. It is further submitted that, the Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension
Rules does not come to the aid, for the reason that as per clause
(b), if departmental proceedings had not been instituted while the
government servant was in service before his retirement, or
during his re-employment, it could not have been instituted
without the sanction of the Government, which was not secured
at appropriate level.
12. Per contra , Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel
for the respondent, submitted that in compliance of the order
passed by the High Court, an amount of Rs. 1,89,548/- qua
other retiral benefits except gratuity was already returned to the
appellant vide cheque dated 22.02.2021, which was accepted by
8
the appellant. In this view, estoppel is operative against him to
challenge the order of the High Court.
13. On the issue of jurisdiction to institute the departmental
enquiry, it is urged that such objection was never raised before
the Corporation or at any stage of enquiry or proceedings.
Further, Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations in specific terms
stipulate, all matters for which no specific provision has been
provided, they shall be regulated as far as possible in the same
manner as in the case of the employees of the Government of
Maharashtra. The 1982 Pension Rules are applicable to the
employees of Government of Maharashtra and as per Rule 27, the
Corporation has the right alike Government to withhold or
withdraw the pension of an employee for the financial loss caused
to the Corporation during his tenure.
14. Insofar as requirement of prior sanction of the State
Government as contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of 1982
Pension Rules for instituting departmental proceedings is
concerned, it is said, 1992 Regulations were drafted by the
Corporation and sent to the State Government vide letter dated
04.03.1990 for approval. The State Government had granted
9
approval to the same vide letter dated 31.03.1990, whereafter the
Regulations were published in the Maharashtra State Gazette
Part-IVC dated 02.01.1992. Therefore, once the State Government
had granted approval then it shall include sanction for exercising
power under Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS
15. Learned counsel for the parties are heard at length and
records are perused. The question that falls for our consideration
is ‘whether in absence of any provision in the 1992 Regulations for
institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated
employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the
appellant applying Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules? In
case enquiry is instituted after retirement of appellant, whether the
Corporation had the jurisdiction to continue such enquiry and
impose punishment, withholding the retiral benefits and direct
recovery?’
Since both the questions are inter-linked, they are taken up
16.
together for discussion and answered simultaneously. Before
10
adverting to the submissions of parties, it is necessary to refer
the relevant Regulations, which are reproduced as thus:-
Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations –
“Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the
Government of Maharashtra – All matters for which
specific provisions have not been made in these
Regulations shall, as far as possible and to such extent as
may be considered as appropriate by the Corporation, be
regulated in the same manner as in the case of employees
of the Government of Maharashtra. ”
A bare perusal of above, it reveals, in all such cases for
which there is no specific provision contained in the Regulations,
the Corporation as far as possible and to such an extent, as may
be considered appropriate by it, regulate such cases in the same
manner as in the case of employees of the Government of
Maharashtra. In other words, it is in the nature of miscellaneous
provision, incorporated in the Regulations with an intent to cover
such cases on which the Regulations are silent. If Corporation
considers it appropriate to adopt and to apply the Service Rules
as applicable to the employees of Government of Maharashtra,
they are at liberty to do so.
17. Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules –
11
27. Right of Government to withhold or
withdraw pension
(I) Government may, by order in writing, withhold or
withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently
or for a specified period, and also order the recovery from
such pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused to Government, if, in any departmental or judicial
proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his service
including service rendered upon re- employment after
retirement:
Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in
respect of officers holding posts within their purview:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld
or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not
be reduced below the minimum fixed by Government.
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in
sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant
was in service whether before his retirement or during his
re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under
this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had continued in
service.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service, whether
before his retirement or during his re-employment –
12
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
the Government,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such
place as the Government may direct and in accordance
with the procedure applicable to the departmental
proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service
could be made in relation to the Government servant
during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was in service, whether before his
retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted
in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of
an event which took place, more than four years before
such institution.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has
retired on attaining the age of Superannuation or otherwise
and against whom any departmental or judicial
proceedings are instituted or where departmental
proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in rule 130 shall be sanctioned.
xx xx xx
On reading of the above, it is luculent that the Government
has the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part
thereof for a limited period or for the period as it deemed fit or
recover the loss, if any, on account of grave misconduct or
13
negligence of the pensioner during his employment or upon re-
employment after retirement, after consultation with the Public
Service Commission. While doing so, in case of withholding or
withdrawing the pension, remaining pension shall not be reduced
to the threshold fixed by the Government.
18. In case the departmental proceedings have not been
instituted while government servant was in service or before his
retirement or during his re-employment, and the Government
wishes to institute the proceedings, it may be instituted with the
sanction of the Government. It is also made clear that the
institution of any proceeding after retirement can be for a cause
which took place within four years prior to the institution.
Similarly, if the proceedings are already instituted, but have not
culminated, they can be continued in the same pace and manner
as specified in Rule 27(1). After institution of the proceedings, if
the government servant attains the age of superannuation and
the proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in Rule 130 shall be sanctioned.
19. On appreciation of Rule 27(b), it can safely be observed that
in cases where the departmental proceedings were instituted
14
post-retirement without obtaining sanction of the government till
culmination as specified in the rules and simultaneously if the
cause of action of such proceedings arose prior to four years of
date of institution, such proceedings could not have been
instituted or continued. Therefore, the provision is benevolent in
nature, as it regulates the State’s discretion to institute or
continue departmental proceedings.
20. As referred above, in particular Rule 110, which appears to
be a miscellaneous provision and residuary in nature. The
adoption of 1982 Pension Rules in Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations
is limited, when there is no specific provision and if the
Corporation considers it appropriate to apply 1982 Pensions
Rules, the same can be made applicable for the purpose of
regulation of the employees of the Corporation alike the
employees of the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore, 1982
Pension Rules do not have ipso facto application until they have
been either adopted or applied by a conscious decision taken at
appropriate level.
21. On appreciation of the facts of the present case, it is
undisputed that the appellant stood retired on 31.08.2008. The
15
first show cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was served on him
approximately after 11 months from the date of his
superannuation asking explanation with respect to the financial
losses occurred during his tenure as Centre Head. It is the
specific case of the appellant that the Corporation lacks
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against
him in absence of any provision in 1992 Regulations. Per contra ,
the Corporation has tried to make out a case on the anvil of Rule
110, laying much emphasis on the fact that it empowers the
Corporation to deal with the employees of the Corporation alike
the cases of employees of Government of Maharashtra in absence
of any specific provision. Therefore, the case of the appellant
ought to be dealt under 1982 Pension Rules, and accordingly
punishment order was passed against him, directing recovery.
22. In such factual backdrop, when the matter posted for
hearing on 11.11.2025, certain queries cropped up and in the
proceedings, a detailed order was passed, which is reproduced as
thus:-
“ 1. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to Clause 110 of the Maharashtra State
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations (For
16
short, the ‘Regulations’) contended that applicability of the
Rules, Regulations and orders of the Government of
Maharashtra is not ipso facto. The said fact finds support
from the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
(for short, the ‘Pension Rules’) which are made applicable
against him in particular clause 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the Pension
Rules. It is further contended by him that by way of
implication of Rules 27(4), those Rules would be applicable
to those employees who are getting pension. In such
circumstances, the interpretation as made by the High
Court is not justified.
2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
referring to the findings as recorded by the High Court
submits that the Pension Rules have rightly been made
applicable in the facts of the case.
3. After hearing for some time, it is put forth to the
respondent that in furtherance to Clause 110 of the
Regulations, any decision has been taken by the
Corporation indicating the applicability of the Pension
Rules and, in particular, to initiate and continue the
departmental enquiry which was not absolute under the
Pension Rules and is subject to approval by the
Government.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and
is granted a week’s time to ascertain the said fact and to
revert on the same.
5. List on 18.11.2025 immediately after the fresh
miscellaneous matters. ”
17
23. In reply, the Corporation filed additional affidavit dated
15.11.2025, stating as thus:-
“ 7. With regard to two queries specifically raised by
this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing on 11.11.2025, I
submit on the basis of record available with MSWC as
under:-
a. Regulation 110 of Maharashtra State
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992
contemplates that all matters, for which specific provisions
have not been made under those Regulations of 1992,
shall as far as possible and to such an extent as may be
considered appropriate by the Corporation, be regulated in
the same manner as in the case of employees of
Government of Maharashtra by various Rules, Regulations,
Orders of Government of Maharashtra.
Perusal of MSWC’s record so far, though show that there is
no specific order, circular, either at the instance of MD
and/or Board of Directors of MSWC for adoption and
applicability of Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, but
with utmost respect and accountability, it is submitted that
wording in Regulation 110 does not contemplate any
specific Order/Circular for adoption and applicability of
Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982. But admittedly,
MSWC all along has been consistently resorting to,
applying and adopting Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules,
1982 while taking action against delinquent employee who
has retired.
xx xx xx
18
b. Further, with regard to issue of sanction of the
State Government before instituting enquiry as
contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of MCS (Pension) Rules,
1982, it is submitted that
(i) Regulations were drafted by MSWC and vide
letter dated 04.03.1990 sent to State Government for
approval.
(ii) State Government (Cooperation & Textile
Department) vide letter dated 31.03.1990 granted
approval.
(iii) Thereafter in Maharashtra Government Gazette
Part IVC (Page 29) dated 02.01.1992, those Regulations
were published.
(iv) Then, Jt. MD vide Circular dated 10.07.1992
circulated those Regulations for the knowledge of all the
Officers and Officers of MSWC.
(v) Thus, admittedly these Regulations came into
force w.e.f. 02.01.1992 i.e., the date of publication in
Government Gazette.
Thus, once State Government has granted approval on
31.03.1990 to entire Regulations; inclusive of Regulation
110 then, it clearly means that for exercising power under
Rule 27(2)(b) of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, State
Government has already granted general sanction on
31.03.1990 itself and more particularly when those
Regulations were published in Maharashtra Government
Gazette on 02.01.1992.
xx xx xx
19
24. The perusal of the averments of additional affidavit, two
things are patently clear; first , that no resolution or order was
passed by the Corporation adopting or applying the 1982 Pension
Rules to the employees of the Corporation and the entire exercise
was being carried out based on general practice; second, even if it
is assumed that Rule 27(2)(b) was applicable in the case of
appellant, no document has been brought on record to show that
mandate of sanction as provided in the said sub rule was
complied with.
25. In reference to the above fact guidance can be taken from a
judgment of ‘Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra
5
Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana Rao’ , wherein the issue arose
regarding a case of alleged financial irregularities with respect to
year 1992-93, for which disciplinary proceeding were initiated
against the delinquent employees in year 1999, i.e., one year prior
to their retirement in year 2000. The proceedings were continued
after the retirement based on the circular dated 29.08.1998,
whereby the Cooperative Corporation in its Board’s resolution for
adoption of the ‘Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules’ and ‘Andhra
5
2010 15 SCC 322
20
Pradesh Fundamental Rules’ to its employees whenever the GCC
service rules of employees are silent, conferred power to the MD
to adopt the same. This Court while interpreting the circular,
opined that indeed MD had the power to adopt, but no such
adoption had been brought to the notice of the Court, therefore,
continuance of the enquiry/departmental proceedings were not
found to be valid.
26. It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, in
furtherance to Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations, no board
decision/order/notification adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto
for the employees of the Corporation has been brought on record.
Rule 110 is general in nature and where specific provisions have
not been made in the said Regulations, then in the contingency,
as far as possible and to such extent as may be considered
appropriate by Corporation, the cases may be regulated in the
manner as in the case of government employees. In the context of
the provision of Rule 27, as discussed, it cannot be made
applicable ipso facto until the Board of Directors has taken a
conscious decision specifying the circumstances and making
similar benevolent provision as made in 1982 Pension Rules; or
21
having sanction of the Government as required under Rule 27(2)
(b)(i) for instituting or continuing the proceedings in the
contingency as specified applying the Regulations.
27. Further, the clarification given by the Corporation in its
additional affidavit regarding sanction that once the 1992
vide
Regulations were granted approval by the State Government
letter dated 31.03.1990, ‘general sanction’ was accorded for
instituting departmental proceedings under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the
1982 Pension Rules, is devoid of any discernable logic. The usage
of the word ‘shall’ in Rule 27(2)(b)(i) implies that the requirement
of sanction from the Government prior to institution of
departmental enquiry is mandatory in nature for each case. Such
mandatory safeguard is intended to prevent institution of
unwarranted proceedings against the superannuated employees.
Therefore, such mandate cannot be diluted or by-passed by the
Corporation under the pretext of general sanction or general
practice, hence, stand as taken and the argument put forth by
respondents are repelled.
22
28. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the judgment in
‘Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and
6
, wherein this Court while dealing the issue of initiation
Others’
of departmental enquiry, in absence of specific provision and its
continuance after retirement, had observed as thus:-
“7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the
abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation
had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral
benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for
conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the
appellant and nor any provision stating that in case
misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from
retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service
on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the
Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even
for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral
benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such
an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed
and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on
retirement. ”
29. In ‘Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
7
Others’ , this Court inter-alia dealing with a similar question as
to under what circumstances enquiry can be conducted against
6
(1999) 3 SCC 666
7
(2013) 6 SCC 515
23
the delinquent employee who has retired on reaching the age of
superannuation, observed as thus:-
30. After analyzing Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of
1982 Pension Rules and also considering the averments made in
additional affidavit filed as directed on 11.11.2025, the
Corporation was unable to produce a conscious decision of the
Board regarding adoption of Pension Rules and the
circumstances explaining the situation to apply the same rules as
applicable to the employees of the Government of Maharashtra to
the employees of the Corporation in the matter of institution and
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings post retirement. In
light of the above discussions and in view of the judgments
referred hereinabove, the irresistible conclusion can be drawn
that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute the
departmental proceedings against the appellant for the alleged
misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 1982
Pension Rules. As such the questions as posed hereinabove are
answered in favour of the appellant against the Corporation.
24
31. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned
order passed by the High Court is set-aside. The impugned
departmental proceedings against the appellant are also hereby
quashed, and the Corporation is directed to release all the retiral
benefits to the appellant within a period of eight weeks. The
recovery, if any, made from the appellant in the interregnum,
shall also be refunded within the period as specified.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed-of.
………………………………….J.
(J K MAHESHWARI)
………………………………….J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 06, 2026.
25
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.
Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by
2.
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
directions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal
1
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
2
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
3
1 2
violated Regulation 74 (5) and 74 (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/-, inclusive of
gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment.
1 Acts of misconduct – (5) Causing wilful damage to work in process or to any property of
the Corporation.
2 (13) – Indiscipline or breach or flouting of any instructions or orders issued by the
Corporation, from time to time regarding working, conduct etc.
4
7. The appellant through RTI (right to information) found that
the RTL was reduced to Rs. 2,46,461/-, however, on further
contest, the appellant sought release of his retiral benefits. The
Corporation served him with the third show-cause notice dated
20.10.2016 seeking explanation as to why he should not be held
responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of
Rs. 3,70,820/- and why such be not recovered from him. Finally,
the Corporation vide punishment order dated 04.03.2017 found
the appellant guilty and responsible for the financial losses to the
tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and directed recovery. Out of said
amount, the Corporation withheld the retiral benefits of the
appellant of Rs. 4,43,013/-, and the remaining dues of Rs.
13,66,796/- were directed to be recovered.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 10858 of
2018 seeking following reliefs:-
“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the
nature of writ of mandamus and be pleased to quash and
set aside the enquiry and the action, if any, taken
pursuant to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2009;
b. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
th
the communication dated 4 March, 2017 and further be
5
pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay to the
petitioner all the retiral benefits such as provident fund,
th
gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 6 Pay Commission
etc. with interest till realization of the amount;
c. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside
the impugned show cause notice dated 20.10.2016 issued
by the General Manager (QC) of respondent no. 1;
d. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,
the respondents be forthwith directed to pay this petitioner
all the retiral benefits such as provident fund, gratuity,
leave encashment etc. with interest till realization of the
amount;
xx xx xx
9. In the backdrop of the facts, the appellant posed the issue of
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against
him after his superannuation by the Corporation in absence of
having any provisions in the 1992 Regulations. It was said, he
was neither placed under suspension, nor any enquiry was
pending against at the time of superannuation. On the contrary,
3
it was the case of the Corporation that in terms of Rule 110 of
the 1992 Regulations, in cases for which specific provision has
4
not been made, the Corporation can proceed under Rule 27 of
1982 Pension Rules. By impugned judgment, the High Court
3 Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Government of Maharashtra.
4
Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.
6
accepted the contention of the Corporation and said that though
there is no specific provision in the 1992 Regulations for
institution of the departmental proceedings post superannuation,
however, instituting proceedings against the retired employee,
with the aid of Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules can be done in
terms of Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations. On the question of
withholding the retiral benefits, since his service was not
pensionable, it was concluded, as per Rule 9(37) of 1982 Pension
Rules, ‘pension’ includes ‘gratuity’ and hence, the Corporation
was entitled to withhold only gratuity and no other retiral
benefits like provident fund, leave encashment and insurance.
Lastly, considering the remedy of appeal in the 1992 Regulations,
the High Court refrained to delve into the merit and disposed the
writ petition granting liberty to the appellant to challenge the
order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority.
Hence, the present appeal.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENTS
10. Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Corporation at the very inception lacked the
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings. Rule 110
7
of the 1992 Regulations deals the contingencies for which a
specific provision in the Regulations has not been made. It is in
the nature of residuary clause (or mere a referral clause), which
equips the Corporation to regulate the matters as far as possible
alike retired ‘employees’ of Government of Maharashtra. It does
not confer jurisdiction to make out a new case for carrying out
departmental enquiry against retired employees of the
corporation.
11. It is further submitted that, the Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension
Rules does not come to the aid, for the reason that as per clause
(b), if departmental proceedings had not been instituted while the
government servant was in service before his retirement, or
during his re-employment, it could not have been instituted
without the sanction of the Government, which was not secured
at appropriate level.
12. Per contra , Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel
for the respondent, submitted that in compliance of the order
passed by the High Court, an amount of Rs. 1,89,548/- qua
other retiral benefits except gratuity was already returned to the
appellant vide cheque dated 22.02.2021, which was accepted by
8
the appellant. In this view, estoppel is operative against him to
challenge the order of the High Court.
13. On the issue of jurisdiction to institute the departmental
enquiry, it is urged that such objection was never raised before
the Corporation or at any stage of enquiry or proceedings.
Further, Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations in specific terms
stipulate, all matters for which no specific provision has been
provided, they shall be regulated as far as possible in the same
manner as in the case of the employees of the Government of
Maharashtra. The 1982 Pension Rules are applicable to the
employees of Government of Maharashtra and as per Rule 27, the
Corporation has the right alike Government to withhold or
withdraw the pension of an employee for the financial loss caused
to the Corporation during his tenure.
14. Insofar as requirement of prior sanction of the State
Government as contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of 1982
Pension Rules for instituting departmental proceedings is
concerned, it is said, 1992 Regulations were drafted by the
Corporation and sent to the State Government vide letter dated
04.03.1990 for approval. The State Government had granted
9
approval to the same vide letter dated 31.03.1990, whereafter the
Regulations were published in the Maharashtra State Gazette
Part-IVC dated 02.01.1992. Therefore, once the State Government
had granted approval then it shall include sanction for exercising
power under Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS
15. Learned counsel for the parties are heard at length and
records are perused. The question that falls for our consideration
is ‘whether in absence of any provision in the 1992 Regulations for
institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated
employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the
appellant applying Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules? In
case enquiry is instituted after retirement of appellant, whether the
Corporation had the jurisdiction to continue such enquiry and
impose punishment, withholding the retiral benefits and direct
recovery?’
Since both the questions are inter-linked, they are taken up
16.
together for discussion and answered simultaneously. Before
10
adverting to the submissions of parties, it is necessary to refer
the relevant Regulations, which are reproduced as thus:-
Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations –
“Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the
Government of Maharashtra – All matters for which
specific provisions have not been made in these
Regulations shall, as far as possible and to such extent as
may be considered as appropriate by the Corporation, be
regulated in the same manner as in the case of employees
of the Government of Maharashtra. ”
A bare perusal of above, it reveals, in all such cases for
which there is no specific provision contained in the Regulations,
the Corporation as far as possible and to such an extent, as may
be considered appropriate by it, regulate such cases in the same
manner as in the case of employees of the Government of
Maharashtra. In other words, it is in the nature of miscellaneous
provision, incorporated in the Regulations with an intent to cover
such cases on which the Regulations are silent. If Corporation
considers it appropriate to adopt and to apply the Service Rules
as applicable to the employees of Government of Maharashtra,
they are at liberty to do so.
17. Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules –
11
27. Right of Government to withhold or
withdraw pension
(I) Government may, by order in writing, withhold or
withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently
or for a specified period, and also order the recovery from
such pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
caused to Government, if, in any departmental or judicial
proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his service
including service rendered upon re- employment after
retirement:
Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in
respect of officers holding posts within their purview:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld
or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not
be reduced below the minimum fixed by Government.
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in
sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant
was in service whether before his retirement or during his
re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under
this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the
authority by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had continued in
service.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service, whether
before his retirement or during his re-employment –
12
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
the Government,
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such
place as the Government may direct and in accordance
with the procedure applicable to the departmental
proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service
could be made in relation to the Government servant
during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was in service, whether before his
retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted
in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of
an event which took place, more than four years before
such institution.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has
retired on attaining the age of Superannuation or otherwise
and against whom any departmental or judicial
proceedings are instituted or where departmental
proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in rule 130 shall be sanctioned.
xx xx xx
On reading of the above, it is luculent that the Government
has the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part
thereof for a limited period or for the period as it deemed fit or
recover the loss, if any, on account of grave misconduct or
13
negligence of the pensioner during his employment or upon re-
employment after retirement, after consultation with the Public
Service Commission. While doing so, in case of withholding or
withdrawing the pension, remaining pension shall not be reduced
to the threshold fixed by the Government.
18. In case the departmental proceedings have not been
instituted while government servant was in service or before his
retirement or during his re-employment, and the Government
wishes to institute the proceedings, it may be instituted with the
sanction of the Government. It is also made clear that the
institution of any proceeding after retirement can be for a cause
which took place within four years prior to the institution.
Similarly, if the proceedings are already instituted, but have not
culminated, they can be continued in the same pace and manner
as specified in Rule 27(1). After institution of the proceedings, if
the government servant attains the age of superannuation and
the proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in Rule 130 shall be sanctioned.
19. On appreciation of Rule 27(b), it can safely be observed that
in cases where the departmental proceedings were instituted
14
post-retirement without obtaining sanction of the government till
culmination as specified in the rules and simultaneously if the
cause of action of such proceedings arose prior to four years of
date of institution, such proceedings could not have been
instituted or continued. Therefore, the provision is benevolent in
nature, as it regulates the State’s discretion to institute or
continue departmental proceedings.
20. As referred above, in particular Rule 110, which appears to
be a miscellaneous provision and residuary in nature. The
adoption of 1982 Pension Rules in Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations
is limited, when there is no specific provision and if the
Corporation considers it appropriate to apply 1982 Pensions
Rules, the same can be made applicable for the purpose of
regulation of the employees of the Corporation alike the
employees of the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore, 1982
Pension Rules do not have ipso facto application until they have
been either adopted or applied by a conscious decision taken at
appropriate level.
21. On appreciation of the facts of the present case, it is
undisputed that the appellant stood retired on 31.08.2008. The
15
first show cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was served on him
approximately after 11 months from the date of his
superannuation asking explanation with respect to the financial
losses occurred during his tenure as Centre Head. It is the
specific case of the appellant that the Corporation lacks
jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against
him in absence of any provision in 1992 Regulations. Per contra ,
the Corporation has tried to make out a case on the anvil of Rule
110, laying much emphasis on the fact that it empowers the
Corporation to deal with the employees of the Corporation alike
the cases of employees of Government of Maharashtra in absence
of any specific provision. Therefore, the case of the appellant
ought to be dealt under 1982 Pension Rules, and accordingly
punishment order was passed against him, directing recovery.
22. In such factual backdrop, when the matter posted for
hearing on 11.11.2025, certain queries cropped up and in the
proceedings, a detailed order was passed, which is reproduced as
thus:-
“ 1. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to Clause 110 of the Maharashtra State
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations (For
16
short, the ‘Regulations’) contended that applicability of the
Rules, Regulations and orders of the Government of
Maharashtra is not ipso facto. The said fact finds support
from the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
(for short, the ‘Pension Rules’) which are made applicable
against him in particular clause 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the Pension
Rules. It is further contended by him that by way of
implication of Rules 27(4), those Rules would be applicable
to those employees who are getting pension. In such
circumstances, the interpretation as made by the High
Court is not justified.
2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
referring to the findings as recorded by the High Court
submits that the Pension Rules have rightly been made
applicable in the facts of the case.
3. After hearing for some time, it is put forth to the
respondent that in furtherance to Clause 110 of the
Regulations, any decision has been taken by the
Corporation indicating the applicability of the Pension
Rules and, in particular, to initiate and continue the
departmental enquiry which was not absolute under the
Pension Rules and is subject to approval by the
Government.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and
is granted a week’s time to ascertain the said fact and to
revert on the same.
5. List on 18.11.2025 immediately after the fresh
miscellaneous matters. ”
17
23. In reply, the Corporation filed additional affidavit dated
15.11.2025, stating as thus:-
“ 7. With regard to two queries specifically raised by
this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing on 11.11.2025, I
submit on the basis of record available with MSWC as
under:-
a. Regulation 110 of Maharashtra State
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992
contemplates that all matters, for which specific provisions
have not been made under those Regulations of 1992,
shall as far as possible and to such an extent as may be
considered appropriate by the Corporation, be regulated in
the same manner as in the case of employees of
Government of Maharashtra by various Rules, Regulations,
Orders of Government of Maharashtra.
Perusal of MSWC’s record so far, though show that there is
no specific order, circular, either at the instance of MD
and/or Board of Directors of MSWC for adoption and
applicability of Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, but
with utmost respect and accountability, it is submitted that
wording in Regulation 110 does not contemplate any
specific Order/Circular for adoption and applicability of
Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982. But admittedly,
MSWC all along has been consistently resorting to,
applying and adopting Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules,
1982 while taking action against delinquent employee who
has retired.
xx xx xx
18
b. Further, with regard to issue of sanction of the
State Government before instituting enquiry as
contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of MCS (Pension) Rules,
1982, it is submitted that
(i) Regulations were drafted by MSWC and vide
letter dated 04.03.1990 sent to State Government for
approval.
(ii) State Government (Cooperation & Textile
Department) vide letter dated 31.03.1990 granted
approval.
(iii) Thereafter in Maharashtra Government Gazette
Part IVC (Page 29) dated 02.01.1992, those Regulations
were published.
(iv) Then, Jt. MD vide Circular dated 10.07.1992
circulated those Regulations for the knowledge of all the
Officers and Officers of MSWC.
(v) Thus, admittedly these Regulations came into
force w.e.f. 02.01.1992 i.e., the date of publication in
Government Gazette.
Thus, once State Government has granted approval on
31.03.1990 to entire Regulations; inclusive of Regulation
110 then, it clearly means that for exercising power under
Rule 27(2)(b) of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, State
Government has already granted general sanction on
31.03.1990 itself and more particularly when those
Regulations were published in Maharashtra Government
Gazette on 02.01.1992.
xx xx xx
19
24. The perusal of the averments of additional affidavit, two
things are patently clear; first , that no resolution or order was
passed by the Corporation adopting or applying the 1982 Pension
Rules to the employees of the Corporation and the entire exercise
was being carried out based on general practice; second, even if it
is assumed that Rule 27(2)(b) was applicable in the case of
appellant, no document has been brought on record to show that
mandate of sanction as provided in the said sub rule was
complied with.
25. In reference to the above fact guidance can be taken from a
judgment of ‘Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra
5
Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana Rao’ , wherein the issue arose
regarding a case of alleged financial irregularities with respect to
year 1992-93, for which disciplinary proceeding were initiated
against the delinquent employees in year 1999, i.e., one year prior
to their retirement in year 2000. The proceedings were continued
after the retirement based on the circular dated 29.08.1998,
whereby the Cooperative Corporation in its Board’s resolution for
adoption of the ‘Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules’ and ‘Andhra
5
2010 15 SCC 322
20
Pradesh Fundamental Rules’ to its employees whenever the GCC
service rules of employees are silent, conferred power to the MD
to adopt the same. This Court while interpreting the circular,
opined that indeed MD had the power to adopt, but no such
adoption had been brought to the notice of the Court, therefore,
continuance of the enquiry/departmental proceedings were not
found to be valid.
26. It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, in
furtherance to Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations, no board
decision/order/notification adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto
for the employees of the Corporation has been brought on record.
Rule 110 is general in nature and where specific provisions have
not been made in the said Regulations, then in the contingency,
as far as possible and to such extent as may be considered
appropriate by Corporation, the cases may be regulated in the
manner as in the case of government employees. In the context of
the provision of Rule 27, as discussed, it cannot be made
applicable ipso facto until the Board of Directors has taken a
conscious decision specifying the circumstances and making
similar benevolent provision as made in 1982 Pension Rules; or
21
having sanction of the Government as required under Rule 27(2)
(b)(i) for instituting or continuing the proceedings in the
contingency as specified applying the Regulations.
27. Further, the clarification given by the Corporation in its
additional affidavit regarding sanction that once the 1992
vide
Regulations were granted approval by the State Government
letter dated 31.03.1990, ‘general sanction’ was accorded for
instituting departmental proceedings under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the
1982 Pension Rules, is devoid of any discernable logic. The usage
of the word ‘shall’ in Rule 27(2)(b)(i) implies that the requirement
of sanction from the Government prior to institution of
departmental enquiry is mandatory in nature for each case. Such
mandatory safeguard is intended to prevent institution of
unwarranted proceedings against the superannuated employees.
Therefore, such mandate cannot be diluted or by-passed by the
Corporation under the pretext of general sanction or general
practice, hence, stand as taken and the argument put forth by
respondents are repelled.
22
28. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the judgment in
‘Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and
6
, wherein this Court while dealing the issue of initiation
Others’
of departmental enquiry, in absence of specific provision and its
continuance after retirement, had observed as thus:-
“7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the
abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation
had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral
benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for
conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the
appellant and nor any provision stating that in case
misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from
retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service
on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the
Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even
for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral
benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such
an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed
and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on
retirement. ”
29. In ‘Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and
7
Others’ , this Court inter-alia dealing with a similar question as
to under what circumstances enquiry can be conducted against
6
(1999) 3 SCC 666
7
(2013) 6 SCC 515
23
the delinquent employee who has retired on reaching the age of
superannuation, observed as thus:-
30. After analyzing Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of
1982 Pension Rules and also considering the averments made in
additional affidavit filed as directed on 11.11.2025, the
Corporation was unable to produce a conscious decision of the
Board regarding adoption of Pension Rules and the
circumstances explaining the situation to apply the same rules as
applicable to the employees of the Government of Maharashtra to
the employees of the Corporation in the matter of institution and
continuance of the disciplinary proceedings post retirement. In
light of the above discussions and in view of the judgments
referred hereinabove, the irresistible conclusion can be drawn
that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute the
departmental proceedings against the appellant for the alleged
misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 1982
Pension Rules. As such the questions as posed hereinabove are
answered in favour of the appellant against the Corporation.
24
31. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned
order passed by the High Court is set-aside. The impugned
departmental proceedings against the appellant are also hereby
quashed, and the Corporation is directed to release all the retiral
benefits to the appellant within a period of eight weeks. The
recovery, if any, made from the appellant in the interregnum,
shall also be refunded within the period as specified.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed-of.
………………………………….J.
(J K MAHESHWARI)
………………………………….J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 06, 2026.
25