Post-retirement pension reduction must be proportionate, though service rules may allow action for grave misconduct after retirement.

Service rules may validly permit proceedings after retirement for misconduct committed during service and authorise reduction or withholding of pension where grave misconduct is proved, provided the prescribed disciplinary safeguards are followed. Retirement does not extinguish that limited pension-related jurisdiction. However, any pension cut must be proportionate to the misconduct established on the record. Applying that standard, the 50% reduction imposed on the retired employee was found excessive and unsustainable, and the matter was left for reconsideration on a proportionate basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State could proceed against a retired government servant for misconduct committed during service and reduce or withhold pension under the service rules; (ii) whether the penalty of 50% reduction in pension was justified on the facts proved.

Issue (i): whether the State could proceed against a retired government servant for misconduct committed during service and reduce or withhold pension under the service rules.

Analysis: The service rules governing pension expressly made satisfactory conduct a condition of pension and empowered the Government to reduce or withhold pension even after retirement where the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct. The procedural safeguard prescribed by the conduct and discipline rules was also required to be followed before passing such an order. Since the validity of these rules was not challenged, retirement did not bar action for the limited purpose of determining pension.

Conclusion: The State had authority to initiate proceedings after retirement for the purpose of determining pension and to reduce or withhold pension in accordance with the rules.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty of 50% reduction in pension was justified on the facts proved.

Analysis: Although one charge was found proved and another partly proved, the authority had itself recommended a much lighter reduction. The Court held that the imposed reduction was excessive in relation to the misconduct established and did not adequately account for the fact that the employee had already retired and depended on pension for livelihood.

Conclusion: The reduction of pension by 50% was held to be disproportionate and unsustainable as imposed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirmed the power to proceed against a retired employee for pension-related consequences, but the specific pension cut was set aside for reconsideration on a proportionate basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules expressly preserve the power to withhold or reduce pension for grave misconduct, retirement does not extinguish that power, but the punishment imposed must be proportionate to the proved misconduct.

---