TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idity of the Order before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal. Therefore he filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal. A single Judge of the High Court Allahabad by his Order dated 10.8.84 set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the State Government's Order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground that he had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of defence in as much as the recommendation made by the inquiry officer relating to the quantum of punishment against the petitioner had not been communicated to him. While allowing the writ petition the learned single Judge made the following observations: I am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has now reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the petition in the High Court, consequently no reinstatement can be ordered today. The petitioner will, however, be entitled to receive all the benefits which he would be entitled treating him as having been in service from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation. The petitioner will also be entitled to receive the pensionary benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot afforded opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment as the recommendation with regard to the quantum of punishment made by the Inquiry Officer had not been communicated to him. In fact while allowing the writ petition the learned single Judge himself observed in his order dated 10.8.84 that it would be open to the State govt to draw fresh proceedings if it was permissible to do so.The High Court did not enter into the validity of the charges or the findings recorded against the respondent during the inquiry held against him. After the decision of the writ petition, it was open to the State Govt. to have taken up proceedings against the respondent from the stage at which it was found to be vitiated. Had the respondent not retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation it was open to the State Govt. to pass order awarding punishment to him after issuing a fresh show cause notice and supplying to him a copy of the recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer. There was no legal bar against the State Govt. in following such a course of action. There were serious allegations of misconduct against the respondent which had been proceeded against him during inq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensioner is found guilty in departmental or in judicial proceedings for any misconduct or negligence during his service. Article 353 lays down that no pension shall be granted to an officer dismissed or removed from service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but compassionate allowance may be granted on special consideration. The claim of pens,on is determined by length of service, as provided by Article 474 to 485. Full pension is admissible under the rules not as a matter of course but only if the service rendered by the Government employee is approved. The Regulations empower the authority sanctioning the pension to make such reduction in the amount of pension as it may think proper. These provisions indicate that a Government servant is entitled to pension but the claim of pension is determined in accordance with the statutroy rules. No doubt pension is no more a bounty; instead it is a right earned by the Government servant on the basis of length of service, nonetheless grant of full pension depends on the approval of service rendered by the employee. In other words if the service rendered by the Government servant has not been satisfactory he would not be entitled t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfactory the authority competent to sanction the pension is empowered to make such reduction in the amount of pension as it may think proper. Proviso to the regulation lays down that no order regarding reduction in the amount of pension shall be made without the approval of the appointing authority. Though the Regulations do not expressly provide for affording opportunity to the Govt. Servant before order for the reduction in the pension is issued, but the principles of natural justice ordain that opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the Govt. servant before any order is passed. Art. 311(2) is not attracted, nonetheless the Govt. servant is entitled to opportunity of hearing as the order of reduction in pension affects his right to receive full pension. It is no more in dispute that pension is not bounty; instead it is a right to property earned by the Govt. servant on his rendering satisfactory service to the State. In State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta, [1973] 2 SCR 405 this Court held that the State Govt. could not direct cut in the pension of officers without giving a reasonable opportunity of bearing to them. In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions placed by the Govt. servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice. The High Court's order is not. sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
