Pension Can't Be Withheld On Basis Of Single Instance Of Irregularity; Entire Service Must Be Found Thoroughly Unsatisfactory: Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The employee (Respondent) joined the Water Resources Department as a Junior Engineer in 1979. After the bifurcation of the State, his service was allocated to the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. He was transferred to the Minor Irrigation Division. He joined as a Junior Engineer at the Jaridih Sub-division.

The former Transport Minister made allegations of financial irregularities regarding certain Microlift schemes. The Departmental Flying Squad Team and the Chief Engineer conducted inquiries. It was revealed that the expenditure incurred on the construction works had failed to produce the expected results. The employee was issued a show cause notice. Later, he retired from service.

After retirement, he was issued a second show cause notice under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The second show cause notice proposed a penalty. An order was passed which imposed a punishment of 15% deduction from his pension for a period of five years. Aggrieved by this order, the employee filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant State filed an appeal against the single judge order.

It was argued by the State that the charges were framed against the employee based on the inquiry reports from the Flying Squad and the Chief Engineer. It was further contended that the departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Further, the proceeding had been initiated before the employee retired.

The State submitted that punishment against the employee was imposed because he was found guilty of financial embezzlement and irregular execution of approved Microlift schemes. It was argued that the action was taken under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules, 2000, as his service was not thoroughly satisfactory.

On the other hand, it was argued by the employee that the punishment of 15% pension deduction was passed without initiating a proper departmental proceeding and without affording him due opportunity of hearing. He submitted that the entire issue was related to the years 2003-04, however the proceeding was initiated at the end of his service. It was contrary to the limitation period prescribed under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, 2000.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the Court that as per the Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, the State Government can revise a pension order only if the service was not thoroughly satisfactory or if there is proof of grave misconduct.

As per Rule 43(b) of Rules, 2000, the State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or a judicial proceeding. The State Government has also the right to recover from pension of the concerned pensioner any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if such loss is caused to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service tenure.

It was observed by the Division Bench that to determine whether the service of the employee was not thoroughly satisfactory, it is mandatory for the State Government to consider the entire service record. An order for deduction of pension cannot be passed on basis of single instance of irregularity.

It was further held that the State Government has to satisfy itself that in departmental or judicial proceeding, it has been proved that the employee is guilty of grave misconduct. Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to order deduction of pension in exercise of power under Rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000.

The case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari was relied upon wherein it was held that the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the government servant during his service tenure, will have to be proved from the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken place during his service tenure.

It was held by the Division Bench that the order of deduction of pension of the respondent was passed by citing a particular instance of irregularity however, his service tenure was not thoroughly unsatisfactory. Hence, the authority cannot form an opinion that the service of an employee was thoroughly unsatisfactory by looking at a single instance of irregularity.

It was further observed that no full-fledged departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent. Thus, the charge of grave misconduct was not proved against the respondent.

With the aforesaid observations, it was held by the Division Bench that the order of pension deduction was rightly quashed by the Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Brajeshwar Singh

Case No. : L.P.A. No.102 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Anish Kr. Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I; Manoj Prasad, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Jyoti Kumari, Advocate