Pension Is A Proprietary Right; Can't Be Withheld Without Proven Grave Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that pension is a proprietary right of a government employee and can only be curtailed when there is a definite finding of grave misconduct that would have warranted dismissal from service. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 226]The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:"Pension is a proprietary right as has been held by the Courts in several pronouncements. Such...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that pension is a proprietary right of a government employee and can only be curtailed when there is a definite finding of grave misconduct that would have warranted dismissal from service. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 226]
The bench of Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat observed:
"Pension is a proprietary right as has been held by the Courts in several pronouncements. Such a proprietary right is not required to be taken away without following proper procedure of law. If such a drastic penalty of withholding of pension is required to be imposed on any such Government servant, definite finding is required to be recorded with respect to the gravity of the misconduct and the ultimate result of the said misconduct, whether it would have been resulted in dismissal from service, had the Government servant remained in the employment, and then only penalty aforesaid is required to be imposed".
A petition was filed by the Executive Engineer of the Water Resource Division of Bhind District challenging the impugned order of punishment of January 2, 2016. The respondent no 1 alleged that the petitioner committed irregularities for which a chargesheet was issued to him on February 8, 2012, under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.
The petitioner submitted a reply to the chargesheet, but the disciplinary authority took no action. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, in which the respondents were directed to decide on the petitioner's reply. One year later, an Enquiry officer was appointed by respondent no 1.
The Enquiry officer recorded statements of the petitioner and other witnesses and submitted a report before the disciplinary authority. The authority thus issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and supplied the enquiry report. The petitioner filed a representation against the notice. Later, respondent no 1 obtained confirmation from PSC through a letter of November 16, 2015 and subsequently, respondent no 1 passed a punishment order wherein 5% of the pension amount was withheld for three years.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the advice from MPPSC should have been supplied in advance. The respondent had not supplied the MPPSC advice to the petitioner. Further, it was argued that under Rule 30 of the Rules, every summons, notice of other process made under this rule shall be served to the government servant. Despite this rule, the petitioner claimed that the copy of the PSC advice was not supplied.
He further argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not included in the definition of misconduct and no mens rea was proved on the part of the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned order of punishment was a non-speaking and unreasoned order without considering the grounds or facts mentioned by the petitioner in his reply.
The counsel for the respondents argued that all necessary provisions of the Rules were complied with. IT was further argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature and pertained to the non-maintenance of canals by the petitioner. The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to achieve the target prescribed by the higher authority.
The court, relying on the judgments of SN Narula v Union of India [(2011) 4 SCC 591] and Union of India v RP Singh [(2014) 7 SCC 340], reiterated that advice from UPSC should be supplied in advance to the accused person and if the same is not done, then the inquiry is vitiated on account of violation of natural justice.
Further, the bench noted that per Rule 30 of the Rules, every notice issued or other process made under these rules shall be served to the Government Servant concerned.
The bench further emphasised that when a discretion is vested to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with due diligence, and reasonably and rationally.
The court further examined the definition of grave misconduct, noting that it includes communication or disclosure of any secret official code. But in the present case, no such allegation was made against the petitioner. The bench held:
"The charges leveled against the petitioner are petty in nature and in short all the charges relate to the allegation that the petitioner did not achieve the targets. As it does not involve any financial implication, the punishment of withholding 5% pension for a period of three years appears to be harsh and disproportionate".
Therefore, the bench, after analysing the proportionality of the punishment, held that a pension is a proprietary right and cannot be taken away without a definite finding of misconduct by the government servant.
Thus, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of punishment. The respondents were directed to pay arrears of pension with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Case Title: Ram Avtar Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-4242-2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 226
For Petitioner: Advocate Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar
For State: Government Advocate G.K. Agarwal