After retirement, disciplinary punishment must be imposed by the Board, not a subordinate authority.

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent electricity distribution company, retired in September 2015.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was in service and culminated in an order dated 21 February 2017 passed by the General Manager, imposing the punishment of withholding 5% of his pension for one year.

The order also directed payment of only a limited subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order and the enquiry report under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that, after his retirement, the General Manager lacked competence to impose the penalty and that the competent authority was the Board.

The respondents supported the order but could not distinguish the Division Bench decision in Prem Prakash Sharma v. MPMKVVCL or establish the General Manager’s authority to punish a retired employee.

1. Whether, after the petitioner’s retirement, the General Manager was competent to impose the punishment of withholding 5% of his pension under the applicable pension rules.

2. Whether the matter was required to be placed before the Board, as the highest competent authority, under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration for payment of full salary for the period of suspension when the disciplinary proceedings resulted in a minor punishment.

The Court applied Rule 9(2)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, under which disciplinary proceedings instituted during service may continue after retirement, but where the proceedings were instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority must submit its findings to the Governor; in the respondent company, the Board corresponded to the highest competent authority.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Prem Prakash Sharma v. MPMKVVCL, the Court held that a subordinate disciplinary authority may continue the proceedings after retirement but cannot itself pass the final punishment order against the retired employee; the matter must be referred to the Board.

On suspension benefits, the Court relied on Y.S. Sachan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (4) MPLJ 219, and State of M.P. v. Shailendra, ILR [2011] M.P. 2315, for the principle that where proceedings initiated for a major charge conclude with a minor penalty, denial of full salary for the suspension period requires proper justification and the employee’s entitlement must be considered in accordance with the applicable suspension-pay principles.

The petitioner had retired before the General Manager passed the impugned punishment order.

Although Rule 9(2)(a) permitted continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, Prem Prakash Sharma made clear that the final decision in such a case had to be taken by the highest competent authority, namely the Board, rather than by the subordinate disciplinary authority.

Since the General Manager passed the punishment order without referring the matter to the Board, the order was procedurally invalid.

The Court also found that the direction limiting the petitioner’s subsistence allowance could not stand without consideration of the principles in Y.S. Sachan and Shailendra, particularly because the punishment imposed was minor.

The matter was therefore remitted to the disciplinary authority for forwarding it to the Board under Rule 9(2)(a) of the applicable pension rules, with liberty to the Board to pass an appropriate order on the basis of the enquiry report.

The respondents were further directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for full salary for the suspension period in light of Y.S. Sachan and Shailendra.

The Board was directed to take a decision within 30 days from communication of the order, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.