Retired man faces 3-year pension cut over ‘misconduct’, wins it back in court

Justice Bahrawat noted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are petty in nature, and in short, all the charges relate to the allegation that the petitioner did not achieve the targets, and as it does not involve any financial implication, the punishment of withholding 5 per cent pension for a period of three years appears to be harsh and disproportionate.

The order highlighted that if such a drastic penalty of withholding of pension is required to be imposed on any such government servant, definite finding is required to be recorded with respect to the gravity of the misconduct and the ultimate result of the said misconduct, whether it would have been resulted in dismissal from service, had the dovernment servant remained in the employment, and then only penalty is required to be imposed.

Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat said that the face of order passed by quasi-judicial authority or even by administrative authority affecting rights of parties must speak.

Allegation of irregularities, pension withheld

The petitioner was discharging duties on the post of executive engineer from October 14, 2009, to November 2, 2011, in the water resources division, District Bhind.

The department alleged against the petitioner that he committed irregularities, for which a charge sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet on March 3, 2012, and denied the charges. Thereafter, no action had been taken by the disciplinary authority; therefore, the petitioner submitted a plea, which was decided on January 9, 2014, directing the respondent to take a decision on the reply of the petitioner.

Thereafter, about one year from the order of the court, the department appointed an enquiry officer and a presenting officer vide order dated January 3, 2015.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar submitted that after the statements recorded of the witnesses and the petitioner, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the enquiry officer’s report, and after obtaining approval from the PSC, the disciplinary authority ordered that five per cent of the pension amount of the petitioner was withheld for three years.

According to Singh, the petitioner submitted that the advice from the MPPSC should have been supplied in advance. The respondents have not supplied the advice of the MPPSC to the petitioner, and it is submitted as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of S N Narula v Union of India and others, and the case of Union of India and others v R P Singh.

Charges against petitioner serious: State

Representing the state government, advocate G K Agarwal submitted that all necessary provisions laid down under the Rules 1966 have been complied with, and as such, there is no violation of any sub-rule of Rules 1976.

It was further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as no action was taken by the petitioner for cleaning and maintenance of the canal, and the petitioner has not maintained and cleaned the canals, and did not take any interest and remained negligent.

It was argued that the petitioner had not complied with the direction and did not achieve the target that had been prescribed by the higher authority. It was further submitted that on the basis of documentary evidence and a statement recorded before the enquiry officer, it was proved that the targeted figure was not achieved, hence the enquiry officer has not committed any error in submitting the report that the charge is proved.

Power should be exercised reasonably, rationally: Order

• The advice rendered by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission was not supplied to the petitioner before the passing of the final order of punishment.
• The petitioner has specifically raised the grievance that the non-supply of such advice deprived him of an opportunity to submit an effective representation against the same.
• It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence and reasonably and rationally.
• The Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision.

• It has been held that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak.
• The affected party must know how their case or defence was considered before passing the prejudicial order.