Sunday, 16 June 2019

Whether departmental enquiry can be continued against Judicial officer even after retirement?



 A conjoint reading of the aforesaid subrules
of Rule 27
indicates that the appointing authority is invested with the
power to withhold or withdraw the pension, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service. Good conduct of the pensioner is an implied condition
for the receipt of pension and if subsequently the pensioner is

found guilty of misconduct or negligence in relation to the acts
or omissions during the services rendered by the pensioner, the
pension can be withheld or withdrawn. The retirement of an
employee does not, therefore, completely preclude the
appointing authority from initiating action for dealing with the
misconduct of the employee during currency of the service.
The retirement does not confer complete immunity from the
action for the misconduct during period of employment. The
nature of the action is, however, restricted to withdrawal or
withholding of pension.
19. Clause (a) of Subrule
(2) in express terms provides that
the departmental proceedings referred to in subRule
(1), if
instituted while the Government servant was in service whether
before his retirement or during his reemployment,
shall, after
the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be
proceedings under this rule and shall be continued by the
authority in the same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service. The initiation or continuation of the
disciplinary proceedings, against a retired employee is, however,
subject to certain safeguards to protect the interest of the
employee. Clause (b) of subrule
(2) stipulates conditions for
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service. Subrule
(3)

provides a timelimit
of four years so that the pensioner is not
under a threat of action for eternity. In all the cases, where the
departmental enquiry is instituted either before or after
retirement, subrule
(4) mandates sanction of provisional
pension as provided in Rule 130.
20. If we consider the fascicles of the provisions in Rule 27 of
the Pension Rules, 1982, it becomes evident that the rules do
envisage initiation of the disciplinary action even after
retirement of a Government servant, on superannuation or
otherwise, in addition to the continuation of the disciplinary
proceedings, which was instituted before the retirement of the
Government servant. The broad submission canvassed on
behalf of the Petitioner that after retirement of a Government
servant no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted/continued
runs counter to the express mandate of clause (a) of subrule
(2) of Section 27, extracted above, which incorporates a deeming
provision and, by a legal fiction, mandates that the disciplinary
proceedings instituted before the retirement shall be deemed to
be a proceedings under Rule 27 and continued and concluded
in the same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service. The broad submission therefore cannot be
countenanced.

21. The legal position as regards the institution /
continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of
an employee, seems to have been crystallised to the effect that
the employer can institute/continue the disciplinary
proceedings against an employee who has retired, provided the
rules which govern the services of the employee permit such a
course of action.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2820 OF 2019

 Mrs. Padmini Nandakumar Nair  Vs The Honourable High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through its
Registrar General, Mumbai

CORAM: R. M. BORDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ

PRONOUNCED ON; 14th JUNE, 2019

(Per N. J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally.
3. The Petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer, in the rank of
District Judge, assails the initiation and continuation of

disciplinary proceedings, post acceptance of her request for
voluntary retirement. By amending the petition the Petitioner
has also assailed the order dated 21st November, 2018, passed
by the learned Enquiry Officer, whereby the application of the
Petitioner (Exhibit 121) assailing legality and continuation of
the disciplinary proceedings, initiated vide the memorandum
dated 7th December, 2016, came to be rejected.
4. The background facts necessary for determination of this
petition can be summarised as under:
The Petitioner joined Maharashtra State Judicial Service
in the cadre of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, on 7th September, 1992. Eventually, the
Petitioner came to be promoted as District Judge in the year
2011. In the month of October2016
the Petitioner came to be
selected for the post of Presiding Officer, National Highway
Tribunal. On 25th October, 2016, the Petitioner requested
Respondent no.1 to relieve her from the post of District Judge to
join the said post of Presiding Officer, National Highway
Tribunal, with permission to keep lien on the post of the District
Judge. It is the claim of the Petitioner, since no response was
received from Respondent no.1, the Petitioner sought voluntary
retirement by addressing communication dated 3rd December,
2016. In the meanwhile, on 7th December, 2016, the High

Court, on the administrative side, took a decision to institute
disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and accordingly
a memorandum with articles of charges came to be served upon
the Petitioner, under Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 ('the Rules, 1979'). On 13th
January, 2017, vide Government Resolution, the request of the
Petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement was accepted by the
appointing authority, subject to the condition of continuation of
disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. In terms of the
said Government Resolution, Respondent no.1, in turn, issued
a communication on 13th January, 2017 and the Petitioner
stood voluntarily retired.
5. The Petitioner assailed the said condition of acceptance of
the notice of voluntary retirement subject to continuation of the
disciplinary proceedings against her by filing Writ Petition
No.3905 of 2017. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated
11th September, 2017 refused to sustain the challenge to the
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The Division
Bench was of the view that the Petitioner had voluntarily
accepted the order dated 13th January, 2017 and acted upon it
by handing over charge of the post held by her. Therefore, in
writ jurisdiction, the Petitioner could not have challenged the
condition imposed in the Government Resolution dated 13th

January, 2017. The Division Bench was, however, of the view
that the Petitioner can always raise a contention about the
legality of the disciplinary proceedings at an appropriate stage
in the said proceedings.
6. The Petitioner assailed the aforesaid order of the Division
Bench before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No.1163 of
2018. The Apex Court did not find any ground to interfere with
the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
and the Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of with a
direction to conclude the pending enquiry expeditiously and, as
far as possible, within six months from the date of the said
order i.e. 23rd February, 2018. A review petition preferred by the
Petitioner also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on
31st July, 2018.
7. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the legality of the
disciplinary proceedings before the learned Enquiry Officer. The
learned Enquiry Officer, after appraisal of the rival contention,
was persuaded to reject the challenge holding, inter alia, that
the Petitioner had accepted the order of voluntary retirement
subject to continuation of the departmental enquiry. Being
aggrieved, the Petitioner has again approached this Court

assailing the initiation and continuation of the said
departmental proceedings.
8. We have heard Mr. Apte, the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner, Mr. Borkar, the learned Counsel for Respondent
no.1 and Dr. Kulkarni, the learned AGP for the
State/Respondent nos.2 and 3.
9. Mr. Apte, the learned Senior Counsel, endeavoured to
impress upon the Court that the instant petition, which also
assails the order passed by the learned Enquiry Officer,
refusing to drop the disciplinary proceedings, is in pursuance of
the liberty reserved to the Petitioner, by the Division Bench of
this Court in its order dated 11th September, 2017 in Writ
Petition No.3905 of 2017, to challenge the legality of the
disciplinary proceedings. Amplifying the submission, an
attempt was made to demonstrate that the Division Bench of
this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.3905 of 2017 has not
delved into the aspect of tenability of the disciplinary
proceedings, after the jural relationship between the Petitioner
and Respondent no.2 stood severed by acceptance of the
voluntary retirement. Consequently, according to the learned
Senior Counsel, the continuation of the departmental enquiry,
originally initiated under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1979, on the
premise that the notice of retirement was accepted subject to

the condition of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings, is
legally untenable. It was submitted that there is no provision
which permits the conversion of an enquiry initiated under the
Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1979 into a proceedings under the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('the Pension
Rules, 1982').
10. Though we propose to deal with the submissions
canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner, as regards the legality of
the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the Petitioner, yet we are not fully impressed by the bold
submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the issues of the
acceptance of notice of voluntary retirement subject to the
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and the legality of
the said proceedings were not at all dealt with by the Division
Bench in Writ Petition No.3905 of 2017. As observed earlier, the
Division Bench specifically observed that the Petitioner did not
protest about the two conditions and, in particular, the
condition of continuation of disciplinary proceedings, while or
before acting upon the order dated 13th January, 2017. The
following observations of the Division Bench, in paragraph 9 of
the order in the said writ petition, indicate the manner in which
the Division Bench has dealt with the challenge to the
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.

“9. …..Thus, the conduct of the petitioner shows that the
petitioner voluntary accepted the order dated 13th January,
2017 and voluntarily acted upon it by handing over the
charge of the post held by her. The petitioner did not protest
about the two conditions and in particular, the condition of
continuation of disciplinary proceedings while or before
acting upon the order dated 13th January, 2017. Therefore, in
writ jurisdiction, now she cannot challenge the conditions
imposed in the order dated 13th January, 2017. Prayer clause
(a) of this petition is for setting aside the order of
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.”
11. The Division Bench further observed in paragraph 11
thus:
“11. Thus, the stand of the High Court Administration is
that continuation of disciplinary proceedings will be now in
accordance with sub Rule 2(a) of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Hence, at highest, if any
adverse order is passed in the disciplinary proceedings, only
the pension is likely to be affected.”
12. The aforesaid observations, in our view, lead to a
legitimate inference that the Division Bench was alive to the
situation that the Petitioner had since retired and the
disciplinary proceedings would, at best, entail the consequence
of withholding of pension as contemplated by Rule 27 of the
Pension Rules, 1982. The Division Bench thus dealt with the
aspect of the consequence of severance of employer employee
relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent no.2. What
accentuates the situation is the fact that this order of the
Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3905 of 2017 got the
imprimatur of the Supreme Court by virtue of the disposal of
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4552 of 2018 by order dated 23rd

February, 2018. Upon perusal of the grounds, in the Special
Leave Petition, we found that the Petitioner had, in fact, raised
the ground of legality of continuation of the disciplinary
proceedings in terms of Rule 27(2) of the Pension Rules, 1982,
therein.
13. In our view, the Petitioner could not have agitated the selfsame
ground before the learned Enquiry Officer and even reagitated
the same before this Court in the instant writ petition.
In the backdrop of the observations in paragraph 9, extracted
above, in any event, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to
contest the fact that the Petitioner voluntarily acted upon the
order of acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement subject
to the condition of continuation of the disciplinary proceedings.
14. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of the Petitioner to
show that the Petitioner had, in fact, accepted the said order
under protest. To this end, reliance was sought to be placed on
an endorsement, below the copy of Government Resolution
dated 13th January, 2017, to the effect that the Petitioner was
compelled to accept the said order under protest and without
prejudice to her rights, purportedly made by the Petitioner on
16th January, 2017. We are not persuaded to accord much
weight to the aforesaid submission as the Division Bench of this
Court has recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner

voluntarily accepted the order, whereby her notice of voluntary
retirement was accepted subject to said condition. It would be
now not open for the Petitioner to reagitate
the said issue,
especially when the challenge to the order passed by the
Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3905 of 2017 failed before
the Supreme Court.
15. Mr. Apte, the learned Senior Counsel, urged with tenacity
that despite the acceptance of the order dated 13th January,
2017, under the weight of the circumstances in which the
Petitioner found herself, the unsustainability of the course of
the action adopted by the Respondents of continuing the
disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the
Petitioner can be challenged by the Petitioner on legal premise.
The aforesaid submission was rested on the premise that a
disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 8 of the Rules,
1979, can under no circumstances be continued, or converted
into a proceedings under Section 27 of the Pension Rules, 1982,
as the two provisions operate under totally different spheres.
On this sole premise, according to the learned Senior Counsel,
the disciplinary proceedings is required to be quashed and set
aside.
16. To lend support to the aforesaid submissions, the learned
Senior Counsel placed a strong reliance upon two judgments of

this Court in the case of (1) Chairman/Secretary of Institute
of Shri Acharya Ratna Deshbhushan Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Kolhapur & anr vs. Bhujgonda B. Patil.1 and (2)
Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav vs. Maharashtra Agro Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd.2.
17. Before adverting to deal with the propositions expounded
in the aforesaid rulings, it may be apposite to first note the
relevant provisions of Rule 27 of The Maharashtra Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1982.
“27. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw
pension.
1(a) in subrule
(1), for the words “Government may” the
words “Appointing authority may” shall be substituted and
shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect form the
2nd June, 2003; by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a
pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a
specified period, and also order the recovery, from such
pernion, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to
Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings,
the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence during the period of his service including service
rendered upon reemployment
after retirement:
Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in
respect of officers holding posts within their purview:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not be
reduced below the minimum fixed by Government.
2(a) The departmental proceedings referred to in subrule
(1), if Instituted while the government servant was in service
whether before his retirement or during his reemployment,
shall, after the final retirement of the Government Servant,
be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which they
1 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 602.
2 2010 (5) Bom. C.R. 307.

were commenced in the same manner as if the Government
servant had continued in service.
(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while
the Government servant was in service, whether before his
retirement or during his reemployment,
(
i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of (b)
in subrule
(2) in clause (b), in subclause
(i), for
the words “the Government” the words
“Appointing authority” shall be substituted and
shall be deemed to have been substituted with
effect from the 2nd June, 2003.
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution,
and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such
place as the Government may direct and in
accordance with the procedure applicable to the
departmental proceedings in which an order of
dismissal from service could be made in relation to
the Government servant during his service.
(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was in service, whether before his
retirement or during his reemployment,
shall be instituted in
respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of and
event which took place, more than four years before such
institution.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired
on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and
against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are
instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued
under subrule
(2), a provisional pension as provided in rule
130 shall be sanctioned.”
18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid subrules
of Rule 27
indicates that the appointing authority is invested with the
power to withhold or withdraw the pension, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service. Good conduct of the pensioner is an implied condition
for the receipt of pension and if subsequently the pensioner is

found guilty of misconduct or negligence in relation to the acts
or omissions during the services rendered by the pensioner, the
pension can be withheld or withdrawn. The retirement of an
employee does not, therefore, completely preclude the
appointing authority from initiating action for dealing with the
misconduct of the employee during currency of the service.
The retirement does not confer complete immunity from the
action for the misconduct during period of employment. The
nature of the action is, however, restricted to withdrawal or
withholding of pension.
19. Clause (a) of Subrule
(2) in express terms provides that
the departmental proceedings referred to in subRule
(1), if
instituted while the Government servant was in service whether
before his retirement or during his reemployment,
shall, after
the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be
proceedings under this rule and shall be continued by the
authority in the same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service. The initiation or continuation of the
disciplinary proceedings, against a retired employee is, however,
subject to certain safeguards to protect the interest of the
employee. Clause (b) of subrule
(2) stipulates conditions for
continuation of the disciplinary proceedings if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service. Subrule
(3)

provides a timelimit
of four years so that the pensioner is not
under a threat of action for eternity. In all the cases, where the
departmental enquiry is instituted either before or after
retirement, subrule
(4) mandates sanction of provisional
pension as provided in Rule 130.
20. If we consider the fascicles of the provisions in Rule 27 of
the Pension Rules, 1982, it becomes evident that the rules do
envisage initiation of the disciplinary action even after
retirement of a Government servant, on superannuation or
otherwise, in addition to the continuation of the disciplinary
proceedings, which was instituted before the retirement of the
Government servant. The broad submission canvassed on
behalf of the Petitioner that after retirement of a Government
servant no disciplinary proceedings can be instituted/continued
runs counter to the express mandate of clause (a) of subrule
(2) of Section 27, extracted above, which incorporates a deeming
provision and, by a legal fiction, mandates that the disciplinary
proceedings instituted before the retirement shall be deemed to
be a proceedings under Rule 27 and continued and concluded
in the same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service. The broad submission therefore cannot be
countenanced.

21. The legal position as regards the institution /
continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of
an employee, seems to have been crystallised to the effect that
the employer can institute/continue the disciplinary
proceedings against an employee who has retired, provided the
rules which govern the services of the employee permit such a
course of action. A profitable reference, in this context, can be
made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Girijan Cooperative
Corporation Ltd. Andhra Pradesh vs.
K. Satyanarayan Rao3, wherein after referring to the previous
pronouncements, on this aspect, the following observations
were made:
“14. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that an
employer can initiate a departmental proceedings and/or
continue the same only in terms of the rules framed by it. It
is also a wellsettled
law that the disciplinary proceedings are
initiated only when a chargesheet
is issued. [See Union of
India v. K. V. Jankiraman (sic) (1991) 4 SCC 109].
15. This Court in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor ((2007)
6 SCC 694), has held as under: (SCC pp. 70203,
para 21)
“21. The aforementioned Regulation, however,
could be invoked only when the disciplinary
proceedings had clearly been initiated prior to the
respondent's ceasing to be in service. The
terminologies used therein are of seminal importance.
Only when a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated
against an officer of the bank despite his attaining the
age of superannuation, can the disciplinary
proceedings be allowed on the basis of the legal fiction
created thereunder i.e. continue “as if he was in
service”. Thus, only when a valid departmental
proceeding is initiated by reason of the legal fiction
raised in terms of the said provision, the delinquent
3 (2010) 15 SCC 322.

officer would be deemed to be in service although he
has reached his age of superannuation. The
departmental proceedings, it is trite law, is not
initiated merely by issuance of a showcause
notice. It
is initiated only when a chargesheet
is issued (see
Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109).
This aspect of the matter has also been considered by
this Court recently in Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar
Mishra ((2007) 9 SCC 625) wherein it was held that
date of application of mind on the allegations levelled
against an officer by the competent authority as a
result whereof a chargesheet
is issued would be the
date on which the disciplinary proceedings are said to
have been initiated and not prior thereto. Pendency of
a preliminary enquiry, therefore, by itself cannot be a
ground for invoking Clause 20 of the Regulations.”
(See also Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank
((2007) 9 SCC 15) and Punjab National Bank v. M. L. Kalra
(2008) 3 SCC 494.)
16. In absence of any rules, therefore, a disciplinary
proceeding against a retired employee should not have been
continued. …....”
(emphasis supplied)
22. We may now revert to the judgments, on which a strong
reliance was placed on behalf of the Petitioner, in the cases of
Bhujgonda Patil (supra) and Dhairyasheel Jadhav (supra).
23. In the case of Bhujgonda Patil (supra), a learned Single
Judge after a reference to the provisions contained in Rule 27(1)
and 27(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1982 had enunciated the
legal position as under:
“13. All these provisions, read together, would apparently
disclose that the departmental proceedings spoken of in rule
27 of the Pension Rules are wholly and solely in relation to
the issue pertaining to the payment of pension. Those
proceedings do not relate to disciplinary inquiry which can
otherwise be initiated against the employee for any
misconduct on his part and continued till the employee
attains the age of superannuation. Undoubtedly subrule
(1)
refers to an event wherein the pensioner is found guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his

service or during his reemployment
in any departmental
proceedings. However, it does not specify to be the
departmental proceedings for disciplinary action with the
intention to impose punishment if the employee is found
guilty, but it speaks of misconduct or negligence having been
established and nothing beyond that. Being so, the
proceedings spoken of in rule 27 of the Pension Rules are
those proceedings conducted specifically with the intention of
deciding the issue pertaining to payment of pension on the
employee attaining the age of superannuation, even though
those proceedings might have been commenced as
disciplinary proceedings while the employee was yet to attain
the age of superannuation. The fact that the proceedings are
continued after retirement only with the intention to take
appropriate decision in relation to the payment of pension
must be made known to the employee immediately after he
attains the age of superannuation and, in the absence thereof
the disciplinary proceedings continued for imposing
punishment without reference to the intention to deal with
the issue of payment of pension alone cannot be considered
as the proceedings within the meaning of said expression
under Rule 27 of the Pension Rules.”
24. In the case of Dhairyasheel (supra), after a reference to
the provisions contained in Section 27(2)(a) of the Pension
Rules, 1982, a Division Bench of this Court has observed as
under:
“9. …....It is thus clear that in the event departmental
proceedings was instituted it can be continued and
concluded “as if the Government servant has continued in
service”. Thus, by a deemed fiction though relationship of
employer and employee has ceased, the rules continue the
relationship pursuant to which the departmental proceedings
can be proceeded with. There is no provision in the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal), Rules,
which provide for continuation of enquiry for major
misconduct by issuing of chargesheet.
The penalties are set
out under section 5. If a Government servant is not in service
then none of those penalties can be imposed. Thus, any
enquiry initiated and in which there is no provision for
continuing enquiry must cease on the employee being
allowed to superannuate, in the absence of the provisions
like Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1982.”
(emphasis supplied)

25. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgments it
becomes abundantly clear that the aforesaid propositions do
not advance the cause of the submission putforth
on behalf of
the Petitioner. In the case of Bhujgonda Patil (supra) it was
observed in clear and explicit terms that Rule (2)(a) of the Rule
27 clarifies that the proceedings spoken of for the purpose of
order relating to pension under Rule 27(1), though initially may
be for disciplinary action while the pensioner was in service,
those proceedings would be deemed to have been continued
only for the purpose of action under Rule 27(1) relating to the
pension and not for disciplinary action. Whereas, in the case of
Dhairyasheel (supra) it was observed that any enquiry initiated
and in which there is no provision for continuing enquiry must
cease on the employee being allowed to superannuate, in the
absence of the provisions like Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
26. Indubitably, the Petitioner is governed by the provisions
contained in Pension Rules, 1982. It is incontrovertible that the
disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the Petitioner on
7th December, 2016, much before the notice of voluntary
retirement came to be accepted. In fact, the Petitioner had even
replied to the memorandum and article of charges served upon

her, and the notice of voluntary retirement was accepted
subject to the express condition that the disciplinary enquiry
would continue. The case would thus be covered by Clause (a)
of subrule
(2) of Rule 27.
27. Consequently, the challenge to the continuation of the
disciplinary proceedings instituted, while the Petitioner was in
service, does not merit acceptance. Undoubtedly, even if the
Petitioner is found guilty of the misconduct, the consequence
the said misconduct would entail, would be only withdrawal or
withholding of the pension or part of it, in terms of subrule
(1)
of Rule 27.
28. For the forgoing reasons, we are inclined to hold that the
petition is devoid of substance. The petition, thus, stands
dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no
order as to costs.
29. Rule discharged.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [R. M. BORDE, J.]

Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment