TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether departmental proceedings initiated while in service could lawfully continue after voluntary retirement under Rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972; (ii) Whether pension and gratuity could be withheld permanently as a measure of punishment in the absence of a finding of grave misconduct or negligence, and whether gratuity could be withheld at all on the facts.
Issue (i): Whether departmental proceedings initiated while in service could lawfully continue after voluntary retirement under Rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972.
Analysis: Rule 9(2) provides that departmental proceedings instituted while the Government servant was in service shall, after final retirement, be deemed to be proceedings under that rule and shall continue and conclude in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service. The proviso requiring submission of findings to the President where the proceedings were instituted by a subordinate authority was complied with. Voluntary retirement did not divest the competent authority of jurisdiction to continue the pending proceedings to their logical conclusion.
Conclusion: The proceedings were validly continued after voluntary retirement and the President had jurisdiction to act on the report.
Issue (ii): Whether pension and gratuity could be withheld permanently as a measure of punishment in the absence of a finding of grave misconduct or negligence, and whether gratuity could be withheld at all on the facts.
Analysis: Rule 9(1) empowers the President to withhold or withdraw pension, in whole or in part, only if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings of grave misconduct or negligence during service. Rule 8(5) Explanation (b) indicates the content of grave misconduct, but a finding satisfying the condition precedent is still required. Here, the inquiry report did not record a clear finding of grave misconduct; on the contrary, it indicated that the absence was not entirely wilful. In addition, gratuity is a statutory right, and no provision was shown authorising its forfeiture on the facts, nor was the appellant put on notice that gratuity would be withheld.
Conclusion: Permanent withholding of pension was not sustainable, and withholding of gratuity was also illegal.
Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order could not stand because the statutory precondition for deprivation of pensionary benefits was not established, and the gratuity component was without authority of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Pensionary benefits can be withheld or withdrawn under Rule 9 only upon a recorded finding of grave misconduct or negligence in departmental or judicial proceedings, and gratuity cannot be forfeited absent specific legal authority.
TaxTMI 
