H. L. GULATI versus UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 26-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 722 
H. L. GULATI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8224-8225 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Service law: Pension - Withholding or withdrawing of -
Allegation that appellant holding charge of post of Senior 
Accounts Officer authorised fraudulent claims resulting in 
unauthorized release of Rs. 42. 24 lacs -
Criminal 
D proceedings also initiated - Enquiry officer submitted his 
report - Meanwhile appellant retired - Punishing authority 
punished the appellant ulr.9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 
and withheld 50% of appellant's pension permanently and 
also withheld 50% of gratuity - As regards criminal 
E proceedings, appellant was found not guilty - Appellant 
moved CAT against the order of punishing authority - CAT 
held that enquiry report did not record any finding of grave 
misconduct and therefore punishment inflicted was not 
sustainable - On writ petition by respondent-VO/, order of 
F CAT set aside - Plea of appellant before this Court was that 
the enquiry officer ought to have recorded the finding of 
grave misconduct or grave negligence whereupon punishing 
authority could have invoked r. 9 to inflict an appropriate 
punishment upon him - Held: In enquiry report, appellant-
G delinquent was discharged of charges of ill motive - Enquiry 
report only found him negligent - Appellant was also 
discharged from criminal prosecution - He may have been 
negligent in discharge of his duties but he cannot said to 
H be guilty of grave misconduct - Punishing authority held 
722 
H. L. GULATI v. UNION OF INDIA 
723 
appellant guilty of grave misconduct - However delinquency A 
established was of .negligence and not misconduct -
Therefore finding that appellant was guilty of grave 
misconduct cannot be accepted -
In the absence of 
conclusion of grave negligence, punishment order set aside 
- Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 
B 
exercised to inflict an appropriate punishment upon the 
appellant - Punishment of withholding 50% of gratuity 
maintained - Withholding of 50% of pension sustained till 
the end of the current month, and release of 100% of the 
appellant's pension ordered w.e.f. 01.03.2015 -
CCS C 
(Pension) Rules, 1972 - r.9. 
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972: r.9 -
Invoking r.9 for 
withholding or withdrawing pension - Held: The enquiry 
officer's responsibility is limited to the determination of D 
innocence or guilt of a delinquent employee, with reference 
to charges levelled against him - It is on the establishment 
of the charges that the punishing authority record a finding, 
whether the conclusions lead to the further inference, that 
the delinquent has committed acts of "grave misconduct" or E 
"grave negligence" - It is on such determination by the 
punishing authority that r.9 of the 1972 Rules can be 
invoked, in case the delinquent employee in the meantime, 
has retired on attaining the age of superannuation - Service 
F 
law. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The responsibility vested on an enquiry 
officer is limited to the determination of the innocence G 
or guilt of a delinquent employee, with reference to 
charges levelled against him. It is on the establishment 
of the charges (if any), that the punishing authority will 
record a finding, whether the conclusions lead to the 
further inference, that the delinquent has committed H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A acts of "grave misconduct" or "grave negligence". It is 
on such determination by the punishing authority that 
Rule 9 of the 1972 Rules can be invoked, in case the 
delinquent employee has, in the meantime, retired on 
attaining the age of superannuation. It is not a matter 
B of dispute that when the punishment was inflicted upon 
the appellant, the appellant had already retired from 
service having superannuated. Therefore, there was no 
error on part of punishing authority in invoking rule 9 
C of the 1972 rules. [Para 14] [737-F-H; 738-A-B] 
2. What was sought to be proved against the 
appellant was negligence in the discharge of his duties 
as Senior Accounts Officer, which resulted in the 
unauthorised payment of 36 fraudulent claims, and 
D thereby, the unauthorised dispersal of approximately 
Rs.42.24 lakhs. Additionally, the charge of ill-motive was 
levelled against the appellant in Article IV of the memo 
of charges. But insofar as Article IV of the memo of 
charges is concerned, th

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