Can’t order recovery from pension if no loss caused to govt, rules HC

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 17

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the recovery from pension cannot be ordered as a punitive measure in the absence of finding of loss caused to the government.

The judgment came in a case where 10 per cent cut in pension was imposed on an employee after his superannuation.

10% CUT IMPOSED AFTER SUPERANNUATION

• The judgment came in a case where 10 per cent cut in pension was imposed on an employee after his superannuation
• An inquiry officer appointed in March 2012 held, that the allegation against him was not proven, though there was negligence on his part

The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur was told that a chargesheet dated January 3, 2012, was issued invoking Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, after the employee — holding the post of Assistant Controller (Local Audit), Finance Department — superannuated on March 31, 2010.

The gist of the charges framed was that the full benefit of the market rates was not availed as the works were not executed through tenders. An inquiry officer appointed in March 2012 held, among other things, that the allegation against him was not proven, though there was negligence on his part in not obtaining further instructions from the head office. He also gave a finding that the financial loss was not caused to the municipal council concerned by the method of getting the works done through quotations.

The state of Punjab, however, passed an order on May 21, 2013, imposing a 10 per cent cut in his pension.

There was no finding of any loss caused to the municipal council even in the impugned order. Taking up his plea against the order, a Single Judge observed that the appellant was stated to have passed 377 bills and it was his duty to see whether the work was actually done or it was a way to misutilise the fund.

The Judge held that the “manholes” were missing in “such a large number”, which was not possible overnight. The appellant should have checked the facts to see whether the work was actually done or shown to be done.

Allowing the employee’s appeal, the Division Bench asserted it was it not open to the Single Judge to give a finding of financial loss to the municipal council on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without material on record, Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules could be invoked only if there was a finding by the inquiry officer or the state regarding financial loss to the government.

The rule permitted recovery of pension after it had been sanctioned as a punitive measure to make good the loss to the government on account of negligence on an employee’s part.

The Bench concluded recovery from pension could not have been ordered as a punitive measure in the absence of loss. Setting aside the Single Judge’s judgment and the impugned order, the Bench directed the respondents to pay back the deducted amount with 6 per cent interest per annum.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.