(1.) The appellant retired from the service of the first respondent on 31.3.1993. By Ext P1 order dt. 3.6.1994 it was directed that departmental proceedings should be conducted against him for certain alleged gross misconduct committed by him while functioning as Traffic Manager. Ext. P2 memorandum of charges was also issued on the same date directing the appellant to submit a written statement of defence. Thereafter, he filed Ext. P4 representation before the first respondent requesting to drop the enquiry initiated against him. By Ext P5 order first respondent replied stating that the enquiry ordered was not bad in view of R.9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The appellant filed the original petition challenging the legality of the disciplinary proceedings taken against him and to declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated after his retirement were illegal and without authority of law. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition rejecting the contentions advanced by the appellant.
(2.) The counsel for the appellant Sri. Sri. G. D. Panicker advanced two arguments before us. The first argument was that the present enquiry related to an incident which happened beyond four years and secondly the first respondent had no jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant under R.9(2)(b) of the Rules. In order to understand the scope of the above argument, it is necessary to re-produce R.9 of the Rules:
(3.) The next contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the first respondent has not sustained any loss due to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the appellant and therefore, the first respondent had no legal right to withhold the pensionary benefits due to the appellant. But a careful and close reading of R.9(1) of the Rules will go to show that the right of the President to withhold or withdraw a pension does not depend upon any pecuniary loss caused to the Government R.9(1) of the Rules envisages two courses of action to be adopted against a petitioner. The President has got a right to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof either permanently or for a specified period. The President has also got the power to order recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Thus, it can be seen that only when the President orders recovery from a pension, the question of pecuniary loss caused to the Government is relevant and material. In case of withholding or withdrawing a pension, it was not qualified by the existence of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. The above right of the President to withhold a pension or part thereof does not depend upon any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. If the authority is satisfied that the pecuniary loss was caused to the Government by the misconduct or negligence of the pensioner, then the authority can order recovery from a pension. We are fortified to take the above view on the basis of the recent Supreme Court ruling reported in State of Orissa v. Kalicharan Mohapatra & Anr. ( AIR 1996 SC 684 ), wherein it was held mat to take action against a retired employee, it is not necessary that the charges against the delinquent pensioner must relate to a charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Government by his negligence or misconduct during his service. In the above case, the Supreme Court was considering R.6 of All India Service (Death cum Retirement) Rules, 1958. The above rule also empowers the Central Government to withhold or withdraw a pension and there is the right of ordering recovery from pension or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or State Government, if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government. Therefore, we are clear in our mind that there need not be any express charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Government on account of the negligence or misconduct of the pensioner. Therefore, the first respondent was perfectly justified in proceeding against the appellant under R.9 of the Rules. Under these circumstances, we hold that the learned Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the original petition.