Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000053-000053 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 15562/2021 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts and corporate bodies subject to staff regulations |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative law; service/disciplinary enquiries |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations is a general, residuary provision and does not ipso facto apply the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 to employees of the Corporation unless the Board of Directors takes a conscious decision to adopt those Rules. Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules requires mandatory prior sanction by the Government for initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement. In absence of any board resolution adopting the Pension Rules and of department- or case-specific government sanction, the enquiry lacked jurisdiction and must be quashed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant retired as Storage Superintendent on 31 Aug 2008. In Aug 2009 he received a show-cause notice for alleged losses, was charge-sheeted in Feb 2010 and, after an enquiry concluded in Mar 2017, was held liable for Rs 18,09,809/– with recovery directed from his retiral benefits. The 1992 Regulations contained no specific post-retirement enquiry provision; the Corporation invoked Rule 110 and Rule 27 to proceed. The High Court upheld jurisdiction; this appeal questioned that conclusion. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals; corporate bodies governed by staff regulations |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and administrative tribunals |
| Overrules | General practice of ipso facto application of Pension Rules under a residuary clause |
| Distinguishes | Decisions permitting implied adoption of government service rules without board resolution |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rule 110 of a corporate staff regulation is a residuary clause and does not itself import government service rules; express board adoption is required.
- Mandatory prior sanction under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules cannot be bypassed by “general approval” of a regulation.
- Post-retirement enquiries must be instituted within four years of the alleged misconduct and with case-specific government sanction.
- Absent express adoption or sanction, disciplinary proceedings against retired employees are ultravires and liable to be quashed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations is a miscellaneous provision applying Government of Maharashtra service rules only “as far as possible” and “to such extent as may be considered appropriate” by the Corporation—i.e., not automatic.
- Rule 27(1)–(2) of the Pension Rules authorizes withholding or recovery of pension for post-retirement misconduct but mandates prior government sanction if proceedings were not begun during service.
- The Corporation produced no board resolution or corporate decision expressly adopting the Pension Rules for its staff.
- No case-specific sanction under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) was obtained before initiating the enquiry in 2009.
- Precedents (Girijan Coop., Bhagirathi Jena, Anant Kulkarni) confirm that implied or general adoption is insufficient, and post-retirement proceedings lapse in absence of sanction.
- The enquiry was held ultra vires, and the punishment order directing recovery was quashed as lacking jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The 1992 Regulations contain no provision for post-retirement enquiry; Rule 110 is merely residuary and not an empowering norm.
- Rule 27 of the Pension Rules requires case-specific government sanction prior to instituting proceedings, which was never obtained.
Respondent (Corporation)
- Rule 110 permits the Corporation to apply the Pension Rules where regulations are silent.
- Approval of the 1992 Regulations by the State Government in 1990 amounted to general sanction for Rule 27 proceedings.
- The appellant accepted partial release of retiral benefits post-High Court order, creating an estoppel.
Factual Background
The appellant joined the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation in 1969 and retired as Storage Superintendent on 31 August 2008. In August 2009 a show-cause notice alleged storage and transit losses during his tenure; a disciplinary enquiry followed, culminating in a punishment order in March 2017 directing recovery of Rs 18,09,809/– from his retiral benefits. The 1992 staff regulations did not expressly empower post-retirement enquiries; the Corporation invoked a residuary clause and Government Pension Rules to justify its action.
Statutory Analysis
-
Rule 110, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992
All matters for which specific provisions have not been made in these Regulations shall, as far as possible and to such extent as may be considered appropriate by the Corporation, be regulated in the same manner as in the case of employees of the Government of Maharashtra.
-
Rule 27, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982
Authorizes withholding/withdrawing pension for misconduct including post-service misconduct; sub-rule (2)(b)(i) mandates prior government sanction for proceedings instituted only after retirement.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns practice of automatic application of pension rules under a residuary clause
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms mandatory sanction requirement as stated in Bhagirathi Jena and Anant Kulkarni