TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Retired govt servant can face post-retirement disciplinary action for misconduct. Court directs pension reconsideration.</h1> <h3>State of Maharashtra Versus M.H. Mazumdar.</h3> The Supreme Court held that a retired government servant can face disciplinary action for misconduct post-retirement, as per relevant civil service rules. ... - Issues:1. Whether a retired government servant can be subjected to disciplinary action for misconduct post-retirement.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a government servant can face disciplinary action after retirement for misconduct committed during service. The case involved a retired Supply Inspector from the State of Maharashtra who was served with a charge-sheet post-retirement, leading to a reduction of his pension by 50%. The respondent challenged this reduction through a writ petition, which was initially allowed by the High Court, citing lack of authority for disciplinary action post-retirement. The State Government appealed this decision.The Court examined the relevant Bombay Civil Services Rules, specifically Rules 188 and 189, which empower the government to reduce or withdraw a pension if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct during or after service. The Rules explicitly state that good conduct is a condition for pension, and misconduct can lead to reduction or withdrawal of pension. The Court highlighted previous judgments where similar rules were interpreted to hold retired government servants accountable for misconduct during service.The Court disagreed with the High Court's decision, stating that the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings in this case was not punishment but to determine the respondent's pension amount. The Court found that the State Government had the authority to reduce the pension but deemed the 50% reduction disproportionate to the proven charges of misconduct. The Court directed the State Government to reconsider the reduction of the respondent's pension, emphasizing the need for a more balanced approach considering the respondent's retirement status and livelihood impact.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal partly, setting aside the High Court's decision and the State Government's order, and instructed a reevaluation of the pension reduction. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
