D.V. KAPOOR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 07-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
D.V. KAPOOR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1990 
[L.M. SHARMA. AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Rules 8(5)-
Explanation (b) and 9-Pension and gratuity-Withholding of-For 
absence from duty-Whether valid and legal-'Grave misconduct'-
Interpretation of-Disciplinary proceedings initiated while in service-
Continued and concluded on voluntary retirement-Whether valid and 
legal. 
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964: Rules 3( 1)(1) and 
3(1)(iii)-Absence from duty-Whether 'grave misconduct'-With-
holding of pension-Whether permissible. 
Words & Phrases: 'Grave misconduct'-Meaning of-Rule 8(5), 
Explanation (b) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for 
wilful contravention of Rules 3(l)(i) and 3(l)(iii) of the Central Civil 
Services (Conduct) Rules. 1964 bv absenting himself from duty without 
E 
authorisation and in not rep<lrting to duty at New Delhi office on trans-
fer from London office. Pending proceedings, he was allowed to retire 
voluntarily but was put on notice that the disciplinary proceedings 
would be continued under rule 9 of the Civil Services Pension Rules, 
1972. Thereafter, on completion of the enquiry, the President of India 
in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, decided to 
F 
withhold the entire gratuity and pension otherwise admissible to the 
appellant, on permanent basis, as a measure of punishment. The appel-
lant's writ petition challenging the legality Of the order was dismissed 
hy the High Court, in limine. 
In the appeal by special leave, before this Court, on behalf of the 
G 
appellant it was contended that since the appellant had been allowed to 
retire voluntarily, the proceedings stood abated, and the authorities 
were devoid of jurisdiction to impose the penalty of withholding 
gratuity and pension as a measure of punishment, and that for award-
ing the said punishment the appellant must be found to have committed 
grave misconduct or negligence within the meaning of Rule 8(5), Exp-
H 
lanatioin (b)· 
697 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
~ 
HELD: 1. Rule 9(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 
1972 provided that the departmental proceedings if instituted while the 
Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or 
during his re-employment, should, after the rmal retirement of the 
B 
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under the rule and 
should be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were 
commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had 
.-.....-
continued in service. [701A-B] 
In the instant case, merely becanse the appellant was allowed to 
c retire, the Government is not lacking jurisdiction or power to continue 
the proceedings already initiated to the logical conclusion thereto. The 
only inhibition is that where the departmental proceedings are lnsti-
toted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority 
should submit a report recording its fmdings to the President. That has 
been done, and the President passed the order under challenge. There-
D fore, the proceedings are valid in law and are not abated consequent to 
voluntary retirement of the appellant and the order was passed by the 
competent authority, i.e. the President of India. [70 IB-D] 
2.1 Public employee holding a civil post or office under the State 
~ 
has a legitimate right to earn his pension at the evening of his life after 
E 
retirement be it on superannuation or voluntary retirement. It is not a 
bounty of the State. Equally too of gratuity, a statutory right, earned by 
him. Article 41 of the Constitution accords right to assistance at the old 
age of sickness or disablement. Therefore, when a Government 
employee is sought to be deprived of his pensionary right which he had 
~ 
earned while rendering services under the State, such a deprivation 
F 
must be in accordance with law. [701F-G; 7020] 
...... 
D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, relied 
on. 
2.2 Under Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 
G 
1972, the President has reserved to himself the right to withhold 
pension in whole or in part, whether permanently or for a specified 
period, or he can recover from pension of the whole or part of any 
.,...i..~ 
pecuniary loss caused by the Government employee to the Gov

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.