P M NADGAUDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired on June 30, 1980 from the services of the State Government as a Secretary in the Public Works Department. By its order dated January 21,1981 the Government sanctioned to him provisional pension equal to 100 per cent of the pension that he was entitled to, with effect from July 1, 1980. The very same order also stated that the orders regarding the death-cum-gratuity would be issued in due course.

(2.) Subsequently, on July 20, 1984 the Government instituted departmental proceedings against him under Rules 26 and 27 read with Rule 165 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"). The departmental proceedings were on the basis of the petitioners conduct during the period July 1971 to May 1974 in his capacity as the Superintending Engineer and from July 25, 1977 till the date of his retirement viz. June 30, 1980 variously as the Chief Engineer, Joint Secretary and Secretary to the Government. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the departmental proceedings. He also applied for an interim order staying the said proceedings which was granted by this Court on August 24, 1984. Subsequently, the Government by its order dated February 1, 1985 withdrew the show cause notice dated July 20, 1984 by which the departmental proceedings were initiated without prejudice to its right to issue a fresh show cause notice for the same reasons. On March 16, 1985 a fresh show cause notice was issued for holding departmental enquiry under Rule 189 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (herein after referred to as "the Civil Services Rules") read with Rule 165 of the Pension Rules. The petitioner thereafter amended the petition to challenge the fresh departmental proceedings and has prayed for quashing the same.

(3.) The only question that falls for our consideration is whether the departmental proceedings instituted by the Government are competent. The Government has relied upon Rule 165(2)(c) of the Pension Rules read with Rule 189 of the Civil Services Rules to support the validity of the proceedings, while it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since his case would not fell under Rule 165(2)(c) of the Pension Rules, Rule 189 of the Civil Services Rules will not apply to his case. His case, therefore, will be governed only by Rule 27 of the Pension Rules which prohibits the Government from adopting the present proceedings since admittedly they relate to events which had taken place more than four years before the institution of the proceedings. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to scrutinise the relevant rules circulars.