Supreme Court Holds That Departmental Proceedings Cannot Be Initiated or Continued Against a Retired Employee in Absence of Specific Statutory Authority

Held: The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific provision in the governing service regulations or a conscious and valid adoption of pension rules permitting post-retirement disciplinary action, the employer lacks jurisdiction to institute or continue departmental proceedings against a retired employee or to order recovery from retiral benefits.

Summary: The appellant, a retired Storage Superintendent of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, was subjected to departmental proceedings and recovery orders nearly a year after his superannuation for alleged financial losses during his service tenure. The Corporation sought to justify its action by invoking Rule 110 of the 1992 Service Regulations read with Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework, the nature of Rule 110 as a residuary provision, and the mandatory requirement of prior government sanction under Rule 27 for initiating proceedings after retirement. It found that the Corporation had neither formally adopted the pension rules nor obtained the requisite government sanction, and that general practice or implied approval could not substitute for explicit statutory authority.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, the departmental proceedings and recovery orders against the appellant were quashed, and the Corporation was directed to release all retiral benefits along with refund of any recovered amounts within eight weeks, with all pending applications disposed of.