Withholding pension under Rule 9 requires prior UPSC consultation and an order of the President.

The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Conservator, Paradip Port Trust, under Section 24(1)(a) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, while serving as Harbour Master.

He was transferred to Cochin Port Trust by order dated 20 May 2015.

While serving at Cochin, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by memorandum dated 18 October 2016 under the Paradip Port Trust Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967.

The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28 February 2018. After his retirement, the proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

By order dated 31 May 2018, the Director (Vigilance), Ministry of Shipping, withheld 20% of the petitioner’s monthly pension for five years.

The Court applied Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which reserves to the President the power to withhold or withdraw pension and requires consultation with the UPSC before final orders are passed.

Under Rule 9(2)(a), disciplinary proceedings instituted while a Government servant was in service are deemed to continue under Rule 9 after retirement and must be concluded in the prescribed manner; where the proceedings were instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, its findings must be submitted to the President.

The Court also considered Regulation 10 of the Paradip Port Trust Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967, under which the original disciplinary proceeding was initiated.

The Court distinguished the Andhra Pradesh High Court decision concerning Visakhapatnam Port Trust on the ground that it arose under the regulations applicable to that port and did not govern the present case.

The Court found that the petitioner’s retirement transformed the pending disciplinary proceeding into one governed by Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Since the proposed punishment directly affected the petitioner’s pension, Rule 9 required prior consultation with the UPSC and an order by the President of India.

The respondents’ contention that the Paradip Port Trust’s autonomous character or the 1967 Regulations excluded these requirements was rejected.

The office memorandum relied upon by the respondents merely contemplated examination of the question of UPSC consultation and did not establish that such consultation had been abolished.

As no consultation with the UPSC had taken place and the punishment order had been issued by the Director (Vigilance), rather than by order of the President, the order suffered from violations of the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 9.

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned punishment order was quashed, and the proceedings were disposed of accordingly.