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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan (2013) 6 SCC 515. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.