Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved