Summary
A Storage Superintendent of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation was charge-sheeted after superannuation, and recovery of alleged losses was ordered. The Court held that Regulation 110 of the 1992 Regulations does not apply the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 automatically: the Corporation must consciously decide to adopt them. Even if Rule 27 applied, its mandatory requirement of Government sanction for each post-retirement proceeding was not met. The proceedings were quashed and retiral benefits ordered to be released.
Issues
- Whether, with no provision in the 1992 Regulations for departmental proceedings against a retired employee, the Corporation could institute such proceedings by applying Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules through Regulation 110.
- Whether the Corporation had jurisdiction to continue the post-retirement inquiry, withhold retiral benefits and direct recovery.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 110, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992A residuary provision letting the Corporation, as far as possible and as it considers appropriate, regulate matters not covered by the Regulations as for Government of Maharashtra employees. It does not bring in the 1982 Pension Rules automatically; a conscious decision at the appropriate level, such as by the Board, is required, and none was produced. (¶¶ 16, 20, 24, 26, 30)
- Rule 27, including Rule 27(2)(b), Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982Rule 27 lets the Government withhold or withdraw pension and recover losses for grave misconduct or negligence found in departmental or judicial proceedings. Proceedings not started before retirement cannot be instituted without Government sanction or for events more than four years earlier. The word 'shall' makes sanction mandatory in each case; approval of the Regulations in 1990 was not a general sanction. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, 27, 30)
Held
- Regulation 110 of the 1992 Regulations is residuary. The Corporation may adopt Government rules for matters on which the Regulations are silent, but the 1982 Pension Rules do not apply automatically to its employees without a conscious decision adopting them at the appropriate level. (¶¶ 16, 20, 26)
- Rule 27(2)(b) of the 1982 Pension Rules is a benevolent safeguard. Departmental proceedings not instituted before retirement need Government sanction and cannot relate to events more than four years before institution. Proceedings instituted after retirement without such sanction cannot be instituted or continued. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Sanction under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) is mandatory for each case, so a 'general sanction' cannot be inferred from the State Government's approval of the Regulations, and a general practice of applying Rule 27 cannot dilute it. (¶ 27)
- The Corporation admitted it had no resolution or order adopting the 1982 Pension Rules and was acting on general practice, and it produced no document showing sanction for the proceedings against the appellant. (¶¶ 23, 24, 30)
- Following Girijan Cooperative Corporation and Bhagirathi Jena, without an enabling provision an employer has no authority to start or continue a disciplinary inquiry after retirement or to reduce retiral benefits. The Corporation therefore lacked jurisdiction to institute the proceedings against the appellant and direct recovery. (¶¶ 25, 28, 30)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order was set aside and the departmental proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Corporation must release all retiral benefits within eight weeks and refund any amount recovered in the meantime within the same period.