D V KAPOOR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on August 07,1990

D.V.KAPOOR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KUMAR VERMA VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2003-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BHIMA NAND JHA [LAWS(PAT)-2000-11-40] [RELIED UPON]
OM PRAKASH GODARA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS and CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. SURENDRA T AMIN [LAWS(GJH)-2004-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HANNAN KABIRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
DUDH NATH PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT [LAWS(BOM)-1998-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
KASHI NATH ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAM KARAN SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-255] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL SHAKYA VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-560] [REFERRED]
GANESH S/O KASHINATHRAO GULVE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
MINING AND ALLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION VS. RAM RANJAN MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2003-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
JC PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-239] [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA PATHAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-7-98] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KARAYI GOPALAN S/O. S.AMBU [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
G.M.(REGION), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. THE UNION OF INDIA, [LAWS(PAT)-2018-1-398] [REFERRED TO]
M GANESAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-931] [REFERRED]
KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
S. MANICKAM VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1994-9-32] [REFERRED]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(SC)-1992-12-28] [HELD]
AMISH DEVGAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
VALLABHDAS L SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-324] [REFERRED]
SPECIAL OFFICER DISTRICT OF SCHOOLS VS. DURGADAS MUKHOPADHYAY [LAWS(CAL)-2005-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAPATI TRIPURARI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-201] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV DATTATRAYA SATHE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BHASKAR SHANKAR SALVI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
B R SHARMA VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2006-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. T.P. VENUGOPAL [LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-135] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK KUMAR LAHIRI VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-100] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF DEKHAMI TEA ESTATE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(GAU)-1996-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
C SANGKHUMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2000-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
KARAYI GOPALAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2012-11-530] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LTD VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GATUITY ACT [LAWS(BOM)-1998-11-127] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT [LAWS(BOM)-1998-11-180] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. LT GEN M S SANDHU PVSM [LAWS(DLH)-2001-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP KUMAR VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. SUKUMAR MAITY [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
SWAPAN KUMAR DASGUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R.P.SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN PRASAD VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2011-8-98] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS VS. GAJAJI GOPALJI JADEJA & ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2011-4-289] [REFERRED TO]
MAN BAHADUR MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
ANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-7-64] [REFERRED]
G CHANDRASEKHAR VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1999-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
FAZAL KARIM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK & ORS VS. PRABHAKAR SADASHIV KARVADE [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
SRISHAMSULBARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1992-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. U P UNIVERSITY COLLEGES PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-1994-2-133] [AFFIRMED]
MAMATAMAYEE MOHARANA VS. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING [LAWS(ORI)-2002-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR SINHA VS. BIHAR STATE POWER HOLDING COMPANY LTD. [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
S AMBALAM VS. DIVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER COLLECTORATE CAMPUS [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-473] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KUMAR RAJAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2011-4-390] [REFERRED TO]
REBATI RAMAN KANTH VS. CHAIRMAN BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-1999-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDRA SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2005-1-68] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAR SINGH EX PRINCIPAL PUNJAB GOVT DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1993-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. G.VENKATARAMANAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
A N VERMA VS. S K CHATURVEDI MANAGING DIRECTOR BHARAT PUMPS AND COMPRESSORS NAINI ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
TSUBONGSE SANGTAM VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2004-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
TIRATH RAJ TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-266] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. RAMESHWAR DAYAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD VS. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VS. GOBINDA CHANDRA MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2001-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL OFFICER D I OF SCHOOLS SE VS. DURGADAS MUKHOPADHYAY [LAWS(CAL)-2005-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
P RAMACHANDER CHETTY VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT GOVT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2001-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SUDERSHAN KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-392] [REFERRED TO]
C P ARORA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1994-1-63] [REFERRED]
KESHAV GOPAL CHANDANSHIVE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA SINGH VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-166] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRABHU LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAD HUSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2014-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SINGH VS. GOVT. OF NCD AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2015-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. G GANAYUTHAM [LAWS(SC)-1997-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM YADAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1995-11-147] [CONSIDERED]
ISHWAR CHAND JAIN VS. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (ADMN. SIDE) & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-273] [REFERRED TO]
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ KUMAR VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (NIPER) AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
SREENIVASAN M. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-111] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN TRIVEDI VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2005-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
AQUIL AHMAD S/O MD TAIYAB VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH PRASAD DATTA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-156] [REFERRED TO]
ANNA RAO S. MUTTATHI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJIT ROY VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-57] [REFERRED TO]
TEXMACO LIMITED VS. ROSHAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2001-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
DUDH NATH PANDEY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
Nistar Minz VS. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P. K.CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2016-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
YOG RAJ VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(CA)-2013-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG DEO NARAIN SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1999-8-126] [REFERRED TO]
MISHRI LAL JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2000-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-208] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B DEV [LAWS(SC)-1998-8-142] [DISTINGUISHED]
TAPAN CHANDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM DIXIT LATE RAJ MANGAL DIXIT VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-286] [REFERRED TO]
SK HANNAN ALI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-152] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. SHANKAR LAL SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
I K KANNIAPPAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE PENSION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-246] [REFERRED TO]
KHAGESWAR NAYAK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2004-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
HARAMOHAN KHUNTIA VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
R THANGAM VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
K C KAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1991-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM SINGH VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT / REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. V T PRABHAKARAN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-381] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. K B NIMBALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
M V BHAGWAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-10] [REFERRED TO [ 5 ]]
CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAMYADAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1991-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
D KRISHNAMURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
Jarnail Singh VS. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs [LAWS(MPH)-1992-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ABDUL SAEED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2008-7-92] [REFERRED TO]
S. PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O. K.SREEDHARAN NAIR (LATE), RETIRED J.T.O., BSNL, RESIDING AT C VS. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20 ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARAM PARASHARAM GHASTE VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHANMUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT [LAWS(CHH)-2018-7-137] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNADHAN BISWAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2012-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-165] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR TAMIL NADU AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. K BALASUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-395] [REFERRED TO]
EX-SEP RAM SINGH (RETD) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-226] [REFERRED]
KHIALI RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2006-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. K B NIMBALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2006-2-121] [REFERRED TO]
PALVAISH VS. UP POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
MAHILAMANIAMMA R VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-704] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN KAPUR VS. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (M.P.) & ANR. [LAWS(MPH)-2005-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NISHA PRIYA BHATIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-201] [REFERRED TO]
P.N. BHAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-295] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNENDU NARAYAN GHOSH VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(CAL)-1999-12-29] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH SETH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2004-6-61] [REFERRED TO]
S P S RANA VS. NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-294] [REFERRED TO]
UOI VS. M J A KHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-184] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. H L GULATI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-248] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR VS. M J A KHAN AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-421] [REFERRED]
L. MONY S/O. LAKSHMANA REDDIAR, LOCO PILOT (PASSENGER), SOUTHERN RAILWAY VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION [LAWS(CA)-2009-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
T.P. RATRE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
B.N. JHA VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2018-4-56] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution arises against the decision of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985 dated March 25, 1985. The appellant was working as an Assistant Grade IV of the Indian Foreign Service, Branch 'B' in Indian High Commission at London. On November 8, 1978 he was transferred to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, but he did not join duty as commanded, resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him on August 23, 1979. Pending the proceedings, on February 26, 1980 the appellant sought voluntary retirement from service and by proceedings dated October 24, 1980 he was allowed to retire but was put on notice that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against' him would be continued under Rule 9 of Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1972 for short 'Rules'. His main defence in the explanation was that his wife was ailing at London and, therefore, he sought for leave for six days in. the first instance and 30 days later, which was granted, but as she did not recover from the ailment, he could not undertake travel. So he sought for more leave, but when it was rejected, he was constrained to opt for voluntary retirement. After conducting the enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated May 19, 1981. The gravamen of charges as stated earlier are that the appellant absented himself from duty from December 15, 1978 without any authorisation and despite his being asked to join duty he remained absent from duty which is wilful contravention of Rule 3(i) (ii) and 3(i)(iii) of the Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964. The Inquiry Officer found that "it is however difficult to say whether his absenting himself from duty was entirely wilful". In the concluding portion he says that both the articles of charges have been established, the circumstances in which the appellant violated the rules require a sympathetic consideration while deciding the case under Rule 9 of the Rules. The President, on consideration of the report, agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission decided that the entire gratuity and pension otherwise admissible to the appellant was withheld on permanent basis as a measure of punishment. through the proceedings dated November 24, 198 1. When the appellant challenged the legality thereof, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine on the ground that it would not interfere in. its discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)The contention of Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant having been allowed to retire voluntarily the authorities are devoid of' jurisdiction to impose the penalty of withholding gratuity and pension as a measure of punishment and the proceedings stand abated. We find no substance in the contention. Rule 9(2) of the Rules provided that the departmental proceedings if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall 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. Therefore, merely because the appellant was allowed to retire, the Government is not lacking jurisdiction or power to continue the proceedings already initiated to the logical conclusion thereto. The disciplinary proceedings initiated under the Conduct Rules must be deemed to be proceedings under the rules and shall be continued and concluded by the' authorities by which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. The only inhibition thereafter is as provided in the proviso namely "provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President". That has been done in this case and the President passed the impugned order. Accordingly we hold that the proceedings are valid in law and they 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.
(3.)His further contention that the appellant must be found to have committed "grave misconduct" or "negligence" within the meaning of Rule 8(5)(2) of the Rules which alone gives power and jurisdiction to the authority. to withhold by way of disciplinary measure the gratuity and payment of pension, 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 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 or sickness or disablement. In D. S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 2 SCR 165, the Constitution Bench of this Court held that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but also by the broader significance in that it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice by providing economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to ageing process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when one had given his best in the hey-day of life to his employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. Therefore, it is a sort of stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus pension is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for one self due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.