Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In Writ Petition No. 34715 of 2000 filed by the committee of management and others, the manger and the Principal of the college, the facts are that on account of certain alleged misconduct and actions of the ad hoc Principal, Ravindra Singh Rathore, the committee of management vide resolution dated 3rd May, 2000 placed the respondent No. 2 (Ravindra Singh Rathore) under suspension and decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. An enquiry was initiated and its report, was submitted on 30th July, 2000. Under Section 16G(7) of the Education Act, the District Inspector of Schools is to accord approval to the order of suspension within 60 days and if no orders are passed within 60 days from the date of suspension, the same would become inoperative till such time the District Inspector of Schools takes a decision either approving or disapproving an order of suspension. The petitioners requested the District Inspector of Schools to take a decision. According to the petitioners, the District Inspector of Schools was not inclined to take any decision as a result of which the petitioners had to approach this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28410 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17th July, 2000, directing the District Inspector of Schools to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as early as possible. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 1st August, 2000, revoked the order of suspension of the respondent No. 2. The petitioners resisted the claim of the respondent No. 2 in resuming the charge on the post of ad hoc Principal of the college on the ground that the enquiry has already been completed and the disciplinary proceedings are on the stage of finalisation and if he is reinstated, he would tamper with the evidence and frustrate the enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the prayer made in this writ petition is for the quashing of the order dated 1st August, 2000 and to pass a fresh order on merit regarding the suspension of respondent No. 2.

12. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2967 of 2001 has been filed by Ravindra Singh Rathore on the ground that he has been placed under suspension on 8th December, 2000, by the committee of management mala fidely only on the ground that the enquiry has been completed and further that the disciplinary proceedings are proposed for certain acts of misconduct committed by him. The order of suspension has been approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 9th February, 2001. Ravindra Singh Rathore has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19317 of 2001 challenging the aforesaid order of approval on the ground that the said order has been passed without giving any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing nor does it contain any reason and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In the meantime Ravindra Singh Rathore has attained the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2001. The U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') had issued a notice on 21st December, 2001, calling upon him to submit his explanation to the various charges levelled by the committee of management and also to the documents sent by him. The challenge is on the ground that since he has retired, the disciplinary proceedings cannot continue and is liable to be set aside. Notwithstanding the filing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3396 of 2002 by Ravindra Singh Rathore, as there was no interim order staying the proceedings before the Board the proceedings continued and the Board vide order dated 15th July, 2003, exonerated Ravindra Singh Rathore from all the charges levelled against him by the committee of management of the college and did not approve the proposed order of dismissal from service. This order is under challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39472 of 2003, filed by the committee of management and the Manager of the said College on the ground that the order dated 15th July, 2003 is ex parte as an adjournment of 24 hours was sought on the ground of illness of the representative of the committee of management and further the Board has not considered all the evidence and material on record.

32. Government will have the right to effect recoveries from the pension/family pension sanctioned under this Chapter in respect of any amount due from the employee to the management or the Government."

From a reading of the aforesaid Rule 30. If will be seen that the Government has been given a discretion to withhold or withdraw such pension or any part thereof if the recipient is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. It does not provide for continuance of the pending enquiry once the employee retires. Likewise. Rule 32 empowers the Government to recover any amount due from the employee to the management or the Government from the pension/family pension sanctioned to such employee. It also does not provide for continuance of the pending enquiry. Moreover these Rules only empower the State Government to withhold or withdraw full or a part of pension on conviction of the recipient of serious crime or on being guilty of grave misconduct and recovery of any amount due from such a person.

(SCC pp. 55-56, para 5) "The aforesaid two rules empower Government to reduce or withdraw a pension. Rule 189 contemplates withholding or withdrawing of a pension or any part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct while he was in service or after the completion of his service. Grant of pension and its continuance to a Government servant depend upon the good conduct of the Government servant. Rendering satisfactory service maintaining good conduct is a necessary condition for the grant and continuance of pension. Rule 189 expressly confers power on the Government to withhold or withdraw any part of the pension payable to a Government servant for misconduct which he may have committed while in service. This rule further provides that before any order reducing or withdrawing any part of the pension is made by the competent authority the pensioner must be given opportunity of defence in accordance with the procedure specified in Note I to Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Services (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The State Government's power to reduce or withhold pension by taking proceedings against a Government servant even after his retirement is expressly preserved by the aforesaid rules. The validity of the rules was not challenged either before the High Court or before this Court. In thi0s view, the Government has power to reduce the amount of pension payable to the respondent. In M. Narassimhachar v. State of Mysore and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, similar rules authorising the Government to withhold or reduce the pension granted to the Government servant were interpreted and this Court held that merely because a Government servant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation he could not escape the liability for misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities which he may have committed during the period of his service and the Government was entitled to withhold or reduce the pension granted to a Government servant."