Retired Man Faces 3 Year Pension Cut Misconduct Wins Back Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an order withholding five per cent of a retired executive engineer’s pension for three years, ruling that the pension is a proprietary right, and such a right is not required to be taken away without following the proper procedure of law.

Holding that failure to supply the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) advice before imposing punishment violated natural justice, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat found the charges reflected negligence, not grave misconduct, and directed payment of pension arrears with interest to the 72-year-old retired.

“Pension is a proprietary right, as has been held by the Courts in several pronouncements. Such a proprietary right is not required to be taken away without following the proper procedure of law,” the court said on June 19.

Justice Bahrawat noted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are petty in nature, and in short, all the charges relate to the allegation that the petitioner did not achieve the targets, and as it does not involve any financial implication, the punishment of withholding 5 per cent pension for a period of three years appears to be harsh and disproportionate.

The order highlighted that if such a drastic penalty of withholding of pension is required to be imposed on any such government servant, definite finding is required to be recorded with respect to the gravity of the misconduct and the ultimate result of the said misconduct, whether it would have been resulted in dismissal from service, had the dovernment servant remained in the employment, and then only penalty is required to be imposed.

The petitioner was discharging duties on the post of executive engineer from October 14, 2009, to November 2, 2011, in the water resources division, District Bhind.

The department alleged against the petitioner that he committed irregularities, for which a charge sheet was served on the petitioner under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet on March 3, 2012, and denied the charges. Thereafter, no action had been taken by the disciplinary authority; therefore, the petitioner submitted a plea, which was decided on January 9, 2014, directing the respondent to take a decision on the reply of the petitioner.

Thereafter, about one year from the order of the court, the department appointed an enquiry officer and a presenting officer vide order dated January 3, 2015.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar submitted that after the statements recorded of the witnesses and the petitioner, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the enquiry officer’s report, and after obtaining approval from the PSC, the disciplinary authority ordered that five per cent of the pension amount of the petitioner was withheld for three years.

According to Singh, the petitioner submitted that the advice from the MPPSC should have been supplied in advance. The respondents have not supplied the advice of the MPPSC to the petitioner, and it is submitted as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of S N Narula v Union of India and others, and the case of Union of India and others v R P Singh.

Representing the state government, advocate G K Agarwal submitted that all necessary provisions laid down under the Rules 1966 have been complied with, and as such, there is no violation of any sub-rule of Rules 1976.

It was further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as no action was taken by the petitioner for cleaning and maintenance of the canal, and the petitioner has not maintained and cleaned the canals, and did not take any interest and remained negligent.

It was argued that the petitioner had not complied with the direction and did not achieve the target that had been prescribed by the higher authority. It was further submitted that on the basis of documentary evidence and a statement recorded before the enquiry officer, it was proved that the targeted figure was not achieved, hence the enquiry officer has not committed any error in submitting the report that the charge is proved.

Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More