KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN versus THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 06-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 31 : 2026 INSC 16
Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan  
v. 
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether in absence of any provision in the Maharashtra State 
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 for 
institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated 
employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the 
appellant applying Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil 
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. In case enquiry is instituted after 
retirement of appellant, whether the Corporation had the jurisdiction 
to continue such enquiry and impose punishment, withholding the 
retiral benefits and direct recovery.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 – r.27(I)(2)
(b)(i) – Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) 
Service Regulations, 1992 – r.110 – The case of the appellant 
before High Court was that he had superannuated from the 
service as ‘Storage Superintendent’ on 31.08.2008, whereafter, 
he was served with a show-cause notice seeking explanation 
for unresolved railway transportation losses – He was held 
responsible for financial loss to the Corporation to the tune 
of Rs. 18,09,809/- – Writ petition before the High Court – The 
High Court vide impugned judgment refused to entertain the 
writ petition and disposed it off with directions to take recourse 
of appeal specified in the 1992 Regulations – Correctness:
Held: It is the specific case of the appellant that the Corporation 
lacks jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against 
him in absence of any provision in 1992 Regulations – Per contra, 
the Corporation has tried to make out a case on the anvil of r.110 – 
It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, in furtherance to 
r.110 of 1992 Regulations, no board decision/order/notification 
* Author
32
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto for the employees of the 
Corporation has been brought on record – In the context of the 
provision of r.27, it cannot be made applicable ipso facto until the 
Board of Directors has taken a conscious decision specifying the 
circumstances and making similar benevolent provision as made 
in 1982 Pension Rules; or having sanction of the Government as 
required u/r.27(2) (b)(i) for instituting or continuing the proceedings 
in the contingency as specified applying the Regulations – The 
usage of the word ‘shall’ in r.27(2)(b)(i) implies that the requirement 
of sanction from the Government prior to institution of departmental 
enquiry is mandatory in nature for each case – Such mandate 
cannot be diluted or by-passed by the Corporation under the pretext 
of general sanction or general practice – Thus, the irresistible 
conclusion can be drawn that the Corporation had no jurisdiction 
to institute the departmental proceedings against the appellant for 
the alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying 
1982 Pension Rules – The impugned departmental proceedings 
against the appellant is hereby quashed and the Corporation 
is directed to release all the retiral benefits to the appellant.  
[Paras 21, 27, 30, 31]
Case Law Cited
Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others [1999] 
2 SCR 354 : (1999) 3 SCC 666 – relied on.
Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh v. 
K. Satyanarayana Rao (2010) 15 SCC 322; Anant R. Kulkarni v. 
Y.P. Education Society and Others [2013] 6 SCR 1124 : (2013) 6 
SCC 515 – referred to.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; Maharashtra 
State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992. 
List of Keywords
Service Law; Superannuation; Retiral benefits; Service Rules; 
Service Regulations; Losses; Railway transportation losses; 
Financial loss; Jurisdiction ; Departmental enquiry; Rule  
27(I)(2)(b)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; 
Rule 110 Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) 
Service Regulations, 1992.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
33
Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.  
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 10858 of 2018
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Anjani Kumar Jha, Varun V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.