Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

State of West Bengal and ors. v. Aswini Kumar Mahato - (Supreme Court) (23 Jun 2016)

Government employee can face pension cuts if found guilty in department inquiry

Service

A person found to have caused pecuniary loss to an authority by reason of misconduct or negligence can be punished despite having reached the age of superannuation, so long as department proceedings commenced prior to his retirement.

The Supreme Court was confronted with the query: whether pension can be reduced after a person reaches the age of superannuation, as result of a department mental inquiry finding him culpable for pecuniary loss. In an earlier ruling the Calcutta High Court had held the master-servant relationship to have ceased after the employee reached retirement age. And by the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1971, once an employee was allowed to retire having attained the age of superannuation, government authority had no jurisdiction to pass an order in a disciplinary proceeding.

A two-judge bench of Justices Goel and Khanwilkar, however, readily accepted the arguments of the Appellant: pension could yet be withheld if pecuniary loss was caused by the employee. They reiterated that departmental proceedings could continue not only in instances of pecuniary loss but also of “grave misconduct or negligence”.

Relevant : State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Pronab Chakraborty MANU/SC/0998/2014

Tags : DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY   FORMER EMPLOYEE   PENSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved