Pension penalties for identical proved misconduct must be proportionate and consistent.

The applicant, a retired Senior Telecom Operating Assistant, was charged in 2011 with unauthorised absence, interference with the functioning of another office, and assaulting a subordinate officer.

A 2013 order imposing compulsory retirement was set aside by the Tribunal; the Karnataka High Court dismissed the respondents’ writ petition while reserving liberty to the competent Disciplinary Authority to pass orders in accordance with law.

After the applicant’s superannuation in 2021, the respondents imposed a permanent 25% cut in his monthly pension for his combined DOT and BSNL service, following ratification by the Department of Telecommunications.

The applicant challenged the penalty and related orders.

The Tribunal also noted that another employee facing identical charges received a 25% pension cut for eight years.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings could be continued after the applicant’s retirement and a pension cut imposed under Rule 61 of the BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006.

2. Whether the proved charges amounted to grave misconduct warranting pension reduction, and whether a permanent 25% cut was proportionate given the penalty imposed on the similarly situated employee.

Rule 61(4)(1) of the BSNL (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2006 permits pension to be withheld or reduced where, in disciplinary or judicial proceedings, a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence; under Rule 61(4)(2)(a), proceedings instituted while the employee was in service may continue after retirement.

The Tribunal treated this provision as pari materia with Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

In D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 314, the Supreme Court held that a finding of grave misconduct or negligence is a condition precedent to withholding pension.

The Tribunal also relied on Hombe Gowda Education Trust v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430, V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC, (2005) 7 SCC 338, M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401, and Orissa Cement Ltd. v. V. Adikandasahu, 1960 (1) LLJ 522, concerning workplace discipline, the seriousness of assaulting a superior, and judicial restraint in reviewing disciplinary penalties.

The Tribunal found that the charges—particularly entering another office, disrupting its functioning, and physically assaulting an employee—amounted to grave misconduct, notwithstanding that the charge memo did not expressly use that phrase.

It therefore upheld the authority to continue the proceedings and impose a pension penalty under Rule 61.

However, because the charges were identical to those against another employee who received a 25% pension cut for eight years, the Tribunal considered a permanent cut disproportionate and modified the penalty to align with that comparator.

The OA was disposed of on those terms, with no order as to costs.

The treatment of the suspension period as dies non and the intervening period between compulsory retirement and reinstatement as on duty remained undisturbed.