HUKUMCHAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) It is not in dispute that by the order dtd. 3/4/2019, regular pension payable to the petitioner has been fixed and it has been fixed to the extent of one third of the regular pension payable to the petitioner as per the Rules. The effect of such an order is nothing but reduction of the pension, otherwise payable to the petitioner and therefore, as rightly submitted by Shri G.N.Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure prescribed in Rule 27(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, the Rules of 1982) would come into picture. This rule reads as under:

(3.) It is clear that Competent Authority can withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and can also order recovery, from such pension, unless the pensioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement, in some Departmental Enquiry proceedings or judicial proceedings. The fixation of the pension payable to the petitioner to the extent of one third pension payable to him amounts to permanent withholding of the pension otherwise payable to the petitioner and therefore, as per Rule 27(1) of the Rules of 1982, this can be done only if the pensioner i.e. the petitioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, in a Departmental Enquiry held against him or any judicial proceeding. Admittedly, there is no Departmental Enquiry held against the petitioner. There is also no judicial proceeding filed against him. There is thus no finding of the petitioner being guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during period of his service. It would then follow that the fixation of pension payable to the petitioner only to the extent of one third of the total pension payable to him is bad in law and as such, the impugned order dtd. 3/4/2019 would have to be quashed and set aside.