STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus M.H. MAZUMDAR

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

---<. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
M.H. MAZUMDAR 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, K.N. SINGHAND N.D. OJHA, JJ.J B 
Bombay Civil · Services Rules, 1959: Rules 188 and 189-
Pension-Reduction/withdrawal-Whether permissible. 
Government servant-After retirement of attaining the age of 
superannuation-Whethe~ liable to departmental action for misconduct, 
C 
negligence or financial irregularities committed during service period-
Whether pension can be reduced. 
The respondent retired from State Government . service on 
September I, 1987, on attaining ibe age of superannuation. About a D 
year after his retirement, the respondent was served with a chargesheet 
containing allegations of misconduct and negligence for the period he 
was in service. Enquiry into the charges was held and respondent was 
afforded full opportunity to defend himself. On the conclusion of the 
enquiry a report was submitted by the Collector, holding that one of the 
two charges was established while the other charge was partly proved, 
E 
and that the respondent's action was helpful to one of the parties which 
amounted to a serious default on his part as a Government servant, and 
it was recommended that since the respondent has already retired froin 
' 
service, a lenient view should be taken and reduction in pension to the 
extent of Re. I per month be made. The State Government accepted the 
findings and issued orders reducing the amount of pension payable to 
F 
the respondent by 50% permanently under Rule 188 of the Bombay 
Civil Services Rules. 
The respondent challenged the validity of the Government order 
before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the 
writ petition and quashed State Government's order on the ground that the G 
State Government had no authority in law to take any disciplinary 
proceedings against respondent as he had already retired from service 
and the initiation of disciplinary enquiry and the order of punishment 
were unauthorised and illegal. 
Allowing the appeal by the State. partly, 
H 
31 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD :1.1 Rule i88 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules empow· 
ers the Government to reduce the amount of pension of a Government 
servant whose service has not been thoroughly satisfactory. Rule i89 
expressly confers power_ on the Government to withhold or withdraw 
any part of the pension payable to Government servant for misconduct 
which he may have committed while in service, after giving opportunity 
B of defence in accordance with the procedure specified in Note I of Rule 
33 of the Bombay Civil Services Co_nduct Discipline and Appeal Rules. 
The State Government's power to reduce or withhold pension by taking 
proceedings against Government servant even 'after retirement is thus 
expressly preserved by the aforesaid rules. l34C, F-H] 
C 
l.:i The High Court committed a serious error in holding that the 
State Government had no authority to initiate any proceedings against 
the respondent. The purpose of the enquiry was not to inflict any 
punishment, and the proceedings were initiated for determining res· 
pondent's-pel\sion. The proceedings were taken in accordance with the 
D Rules 188 and 189 of the Rules. [35C-E] 
1.3 T_he Government had power to reduce the pension payable to 
the respondent but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the 
case, the r'Cduction of pension by 50% was too harsh and disproportion· 
ate to the misconduct proved against the respondent. The State Govern· 
E 
ment should have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent 
had retired from service and the reduction of pension by 50% would 
seriously affect his living. The order of the High Court and the State 
Government's order reducing pension by 50% are set aside and the 
State Government is directed to reconsider the question of reduction of 
respondent's pension. [35E·F; 36E·G I 
F 
B.J. She/et v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 11978] 2 SCC 202, 
distinguished. 
M. Narasimhachar v. The State of Mysore, 11960] 1 SCR 981 and 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., 11987] 2 SCC 
G 
179, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 573 
/-
of 1988 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.1987 of the Bombay 
H High Court in W.P. No. 613of1984. 
-· 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. M.H. MAZUMDAR {SINGH, J.I 
33 
A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant. 
B .N. Singh vi and A.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
The fodgment of the Cour

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