The Supreme Court has held that an order to cut a pension is permissible after a person reaches the age of superannuation.
In State of West Bengal v Aswini Kumar Mahato, the state filed an appeal against a decision by Calcutta High Court that under rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, once an employee is allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, the concerned authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order in a disciplinary proceeding since the master-servant relationship ceases on retirement.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
The state contended that under the rules, a pension can be withheld if the employee caused any pecuniary loss or was guilty of misconduct or negligence while in service, subject to the condition contained in the proviso to rule 10(1) that the departmental proceeding is instituted while the employee is in service. If the departmental proceeding was not initiated when the employee was in service, sanction of the governor would be required, under proviso (b).
Allowing the appeal and overruling the high court judgment, the Supreme Court held that there was no bar to the impugned order being passed after superannuation as the inquiry had been initiated before retirement and could have been continued even after the retirement. Referring to its recent judgment in State of West Bengal & Ors v Pronab Chakraborty, the Supreme Court held that, in addition to pecuniary loss caused to the government, proceedings can continue after the date of superannuation in a case of “grave misconduct or negligence”.
If such grave misconduct or negligence entails pecuniary loss to the government, the loss can also be ordered to be recovered from the concerned employee.
[/ihc-hide-content]
