ivil Appeal No 481 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 117
1986 of the Allahabad High Court in WP No 8249 of 1980
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs section Dikshit for the Appellant
Ashok Grover and Pramod Dayal for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
Leave granted
This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad quashing the State Government s Notice dated 29186 issued under article 470b of the Civil Service Regulations calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his pension and gratuity be not forfeited
Relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are necessary to be recaptulated
Brahm Datt Sharma was employed as an Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh
A number of charges were framed against him and after departmental inquiry charges were found proved consequently
He was dismissed from service by the State Govt
s Order dated November 10 1972
He unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the Order before the UP Public Service Tribunal
Therefore he filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court challeng ing the order of dismissal
A single Judge of the High Court Allahabad by his Order dated 10884 set aside the order of the Tribunal and quashed the State Government s Order dis missing the respondent from service on the ground that he had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of 448 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 follow ing 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 enti tled 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 which will be admissible to him as if he continued in service till the date of superannuation
It will be open to the re spondents to draw fresh proceedings if it is permissible to do so
 The respondent had already retired from service during the pendency of the petition before the High Court
On attaining the age of superannuation disciplinary proceedings could not be taken against him
The State Govt
however issued a notice dated 29186 to him calling upon him to show cause as to why orders for forfeiture of his pension and gratuity be not issued in accordance with article 470b Civil Service Regulation as his services have not been wholly satisfactory
The notice contained allegations of misconduct against the respondent regarding financial irreg ularities committed by him
The respondent submitted a reply to the notice but before the same could be examined or a decision could be taken by the Govt
he filed an application before the High Court in Writ Petition No 82449 of 1980 which had already been finally disposed of on 10884
By his Order dated July 11 1986 the learned single Judge of the High Court held that since the departmental proceedings taken against the respondent had already been quashed it was not open to the State Govt
to issue show cause notice under article 470b of Civil Service Regulations on those very allegations which formed charges in the disciplinary proceedings
The Learned single Judge quashed the show cause notice and directed the State Govt
to pay arrears of sal ary pension and other allowances to the respondent
The question which fails for consideration is whether notice dated 29186 was invalid and liable to be quashed
The learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the notice on the sole ground that the 449 allegations specified in the show cause notice were the same which had been the subject matter of departmental inquiry resulting in the respondent s dismissal from service and since dismissal order had been quashed in the writ petition it was not open to the State Govt
to take proceedings for imposing any cut in the respondent s pension on the same set of charges
We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court
While quashing the order of dismissal the learned Judge did not quash the proceedings or the charges instead he had quashed dismissal order merely on the ground that the respondent was not 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 10884 that it would be open to the State govt to draw fresh proceedings if it was permissi ble to do so
The High Court did not enter into the validity of the charges or the findings recorded against the respond ent 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 pun ishment 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 inquiry those charges remained alive even after quashing of the dismissal order and it was therefore open to the State Govt
to take action against the respondent in accordance with the rules
No disciplinary proceedings could be taken as the respondent had retired from service the Govt
therefore considered it appropriate to take action against him under article 470 of Civil Service Regulations
The Regulation vests power in the appointing authority to take action for imposing reduction in the pension as the State Govt
is the appointing author ity it was competent to issue show cause notice to the respondent
The notice specified various acts of omissions and commissions with a view to afford respondent opportunity to show that he had rendered throughout satisfactory service and that the allegations made against him did not justify any reduction in the amount of pension
If disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the Govt are initiated in respect of misconduct committed by him and if he retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation before the completion of the proceedings it is open to the State Govt
to direct deduc 450 tion in his pension on the proof of the allegations made against him
If the charges are not established during the disciplinary proceedings or if the disciplinary proceedings are quashed it is not permissible to the State Govt
to direct reduction in the pension on the same allegations but if the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed and if the charges of serious allegations are established which may have bearing on the question of rendering efficient and satisfactory service it would be open to the Govt
to take proceedings against the Govt
servant in accordanace with rules for the deduction of pension and gratuity
In this view the High Court committed error in holding that the show cause notice was vitiated
Grant of pension to employees of the State Government is regulated by the Civil Service Regulations which have statu tory character
Article 348 A provides that pension shall be granted subject to the conditions contained in the Regula tions
Article 351 A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and also to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of the pension for any pecuni ary loss caused to the Government if the 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 penson 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 statu troy 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 serv ant has not been satisfactory he would not be entitled to full pension and it would always to open to the Govt
to withhold or reduce the amount of pension in accordance with the statutory rules
If the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Govt
servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him it is open to the State Govt
to initiate departmental proceedings and if 451 in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct negligence or any other such act or omission as a result of which Govt
is put to pecuniary loss the State Govt
is entitled to withhold reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension
These provisions ordain the Govt
servant to perform his duties faithfully and honestly
Honest and devoted service rendered by a Govt
servant ensures efficiency in public administration
The statutory rules therefore contain provisions for the forfei ture and deduction in the pension of Govt
servant who have not rendered satisfactory service or who have been found guilty of misconduct or negligence resulting in pencuniary loss to the Govt
Merely because a Govt
servant retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities
article 470 of the Civil Service Regulation reads as under 470a The full pension admissible under the Rules is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved See Appendix 9 b If the service has not been thor oughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper
Provided that in cases where the authority sanctioning pension is other than the appoint ing authority no order regarding reduction in the amount of pension shall be made without the approval of the appointing authority
Note For the purpose of this Article ap pointing authority  shall mean the authority which is competent to make substantive ap pointment to the post or service from which the officer concerned retires
 A plain reading of the regulation indicates that full pension is not awarded as a matter of course to a Govt
servant on his retirement instead it is awarded to him if his satisfactory service is approved
If the service of a Govt
servant has not been thoroughly satisfactory 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 452 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
article 3112 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 vs KR Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta  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 vs State of Bihar  Ors it was held that pension is not bounty pay able at the sweet will and pleasure of the Govt instead the right to pension is valuable right vested in a Govt
servant
Again in DS Nakara and Ors
vs Union of India  this Court held that payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Govt
but it is governed by the rules and Govt
servant coming under those rules is entitled to claim pension
A Govt
employee earns his pension by rendering long and efficient service the claim of pension is regulated by rules which provide for reduction in the amount of pension if the Govt
servant has failed to render efficient service
In M Narasimhachar vs State of Mysore 1960 1 SCR 981 this Court upheld the order of the State Govt
in reducing pension of a Govt
employee as the rules regulating the grant of pension made provision for reduction of pension on account of his having rendered unsatisfactory service
Rule 64 of Punjab Civil Pension Rules provides for the reduction in the amount of pension if the service of the Govt
employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory
The State Govt
s order directing reduction of pension of the employee of State of Punjab were set aside by this Court in State of Punjab vs KR Erry and Sebhag Rai Mehta Supra and in State of Punjab  Anr
vs Iqbal Singh  on the ground that the orders imposing deduction in the pension had been passed in viola tion of principles of natural justice as the affected em ployees had not been afforded opportunity of hearing
These decisions leave no scope for any doubt that the State Govt
is competent to direct reduction in pension after affording opportunity of hearing to the Govt
servant
The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice
When a show cause notice is issued to a Govt
servant under a 453 statutory provision calling upon him to show cause ordi narily the Govt
servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law
The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Govt
servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Govt
to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions 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 1081984 thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court
No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subse quent events after two years
If the respondent was ag grieved by the notice dated 29186 he could have filed a separate petition under article 226 of the Constitution chal lenging 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 respondent s application which was founded on a separate cause of action
When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous applica tion in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action
If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the order of the High Court dated 10884
It would be open to the State Government to consider the respondents reply to the show cause notice and proceed with the matter in accordance with law
In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Article 470b of the UP Civil Service Regulations provides for reduction in pension amount by the sanctioning authority in cases where the service of a Government servant has not been thoroughly satisfactory
A number of charges framed against the first respondent were found proved in a departmental inquiry
He was dis missed from service by order dated November 10 1972
The UP Public Service Tribunal upheld the dismissal
In a writ petition filed by him the High Court quashed the said order on August 10 1984 on the ground that he had not been af forded reasonable opportunity of defence inasmuch as the recommendation of the inquiry officer relating to the quan tum of punishment had not been communicated to him
Since the respondent had already retired from service during the pendency of the petition only consequential reliefs were granted
The State Government issued a notice to him on January 29 1986 calling upon him to show cause as to why orders for forfeiture of his pension and gratuity be not issued in accordance with Article 470b of the Civil Service Regula tions as his services have not been wholly satis 445 factory
It contained allegations of misconduct
The re spondent thereupon filed on application in the writ petition which had already been disposed of on August 10 1984
The High Court held that since departmental proceedings taken against the respondent had already been quashed it was not open to the State Government to issue show cause notice for imposing reduction in the respondent s pension on the same set of charges
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court HELD1
When a show cause notice is issued to a Govern ment servant under a statutory provision he must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause
The courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless it is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law
The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken
Interference by the Court before that stage would be prema ture
The High Court therefore ought not to have inter fered with the show cause notice in the instant case
452H 453A C 21 When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of a writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen them by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action
453F 22 In the instant case Respondent s writ petition challenging the order of dismissal having been finally disposed of on August 10 1984 no miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive those proceed ings
If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated January 29 1986 he could have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as it provided a separate cause of action
The High Court therefore commit ted an error in entertaining his application
453D E 3
After the decision of the writ petition it was open to the State Government 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 the State Government could have passed orders awarding punish ment to him after issuing a fresh show cause notice
449D 446 4
Merely because a Government servant retires from service an attaining the age of superannuation he cannot escape the liability of misconduct and negligence or finan cial irregularities
There were serious allegations of misconduct against the respondent which had been proceeded against him during inquiry
Those charges remained alive even after quashing of the dismissal order
Since no disci plinary proceedings could be taken as he had retired from service the Government proceeded to take action against him under the Civil Service Regulations
451C 449F 51 Pension is not bounty instead it is a right to property earned by the Government servant on his rendering satisfactory service to the State
Article 470b of the Civil Service Regulations vests power in the appointing authority to take action for imposing reduction in pension
As the State Government is the appointment authority in the instant case it was competent to issue show cause notice to the respondent
450F 452G 52 If disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the Government are initiated in respect of misconduct com mitted by him and if he retires from service before the completion of the proceedings it is open to the State Government to direct reduction in his pension on the proof of the allegations made against him
If the charges are not established during the disciplinary proceedings or if the disciplinary proceedings are quashed it is not permissible to the State Government to direct reduction in the pension on the same allegations but if the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed and if the charges of serious allega tions are established which may have bearing on the ques tion of rendering efficient and satisfactory service it would be open to the Government to take proceedings against the Government servant and to withhold or reduce the amount of pension in accordance with the statutory rules
If the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him it is open to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings and if in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct negligence or any other such act or commission as a result of which Government is put to pecuniary loss the State Government is entitled to with hold reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfei ture or reduction of pension
449H 450 A B D F 53 article 3112 of the Constitution is not attracted nonetheless the Government servant is entitled to opportuni ty of hearing before order for reduction in pension is issued as it would affect his right to receive full pen sion
452B 447 54 It would be open to the State Government to consider the respondent s reply to the show cause notice and proceed with the matter in accordance with law
453G State of Punjab vs KR Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta   Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar  Ors
  DS Nakara and Ors vs Union of India   M Narasimhachar vs State of Mysore 1960 1 SCR 981 and State of Punjab  Anr
vs Iqbal Singh   referred to