Rajasthan High Court Upholds 10% Lifetime Pension Cut After Police Officials Fled Mob, Sub-Inspector Burnt Alive

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the punishment of withholding 10% of the pension payable to three retired police officials for their lifetime, after finding them guilty of grave negligence in discharging their duties during a law-and-order situation that resulted in the death of a Sub-Inspector.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the disciplinary proceedings could continue after the officials' retirement since the charge-sheet had been served on them while they were still in service. The Court also found no error in the disciplinary authority's decision to impose the pension cut.

The case arose from an incident on March 17, 2011, when a protest was underway in village Soorwal following the murder of a woman. Some protesters had climbed a water tank and threatened to jump if the accused in the murder case were not arrested by 5 PM. The petitioners, who were police officials present at the spot, were charged with failing to discharge their duties and leaving the scene when the situation escalated.

According to the charge-sheet, the situation spiralled out of control after one of the protesters, Rajesh Meena, sprinkled petrol on himself, set himself on fire and jumped from the water tank. The petitioners were alleged to have fled instead of taking charge of the law-and-order situation.

In their absence, a mob caught Sub-Inspector Phool Mohammed, who was performing his duties at the spot. The mob pelted stones at him and set a government vehicle on fire. The Sub-Inspector was ultimately burnt alive. The incident formed the basis of the allegation of negligence against the petitioners.

A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served upon the officials in 2012, while they were still in service. However, the departmental enquiry continued after their retirement.

The Enquiry Officer, in a report dated July 5, 2019, exonerated the petitioners of all charges. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed with the findings and issued a disagreement notice to the officials before eventually passing the order imposing a 10% deduction/withholding of their pension for life.

Challenging the order, the petitioners argued that Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 permitted withholding or withdrawal of pension only where a pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in accordance with the prescribed procedure. They also contended that the disciplinary authority had failed to record proper findings on each charge.

The State, on the other hand, argued that Rule 7 applied because the disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the officials before their retirement and the allegations concerned negligence in the discharge of their official duties.

The High Court accepted the State's submission, holding that this was not a case where the charge-sheet had been issued after retirement. Rather, the charge-sheet had been served while the officials were in service, and only the outcome of the proceedings came after their retirement.

The Court also noted that Rule 7 specifically provides that departmental proceedings instituted while a government servant is in service are to continue after retirement as proceedings under the pension rules.

On the question of negligence, the Court found that the Disciplinary Authority had recorded a finding that the petitioners had failed to discharge their duties and had fled from the spot instead of controlling the mob.

“Instead of controlling the law and order situation, the petitioners fled from the spot and failed to discharge their official duties. Hence, there was grave negligence on the part of the petitioners in discharging their duties.”

The Court further held that the disciplinary authority had complied with Rules 16(9) to 16(11), recording reasons in its disagreement note and dealing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on each charge.

Finding no error in the disciplinary authority's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.