IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 171/2009. Date of decision:25.3.2010 State of HP ....Appellant Versus J.K. Sharma ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B,Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting: Yes. For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl AG with Mr.J.K.Verma, Dy.A.G for respondents No. 1 to 4. For the Respondent: Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.(Oral) CMP(M) No.1099 of 2009: Though the application is opposed, having regard to the averments in the affidavit, we are of the view that the delay is liable to be condoned. Hence, the delay is condoned. LPA No.171 of 2009: Admitted. Service is waived by Mr.Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Writ petitioner retired from service in the year 1996. It is pointed out that three days prior to his retirement as Forest Officer he was served with memo of charges. The main allegation is supervisory lapse in not having made 20% cut in the labour supply and in the process it was estimated that the Government had suffered loss to the tune of Rs.31,475/-. It took five years to complete the inquiry. The petitioner was supplied with a copy of the inquiry report. As per the inquiry report, the writ petitioner had been exonerated. But it is seen that the 2 findings were reversed and a penalty of recovery of Rs.1 lac from his pensionery benefits and reduction in pension to the tune of 50% was imposed on the petitioner. We are also informed that even now the petitioner is granted only the provisional pension and his pension has not been fixed and the pensionary benefits have not been disbursed, even after 14 years of retirement. Learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner submits that in the inquiry report writ petitioner has not been found guilty of the charges levelled against him and in case the disciplinary authority intended to reverse any of the findings in the inquiry, the same could have been done only with notice to the petitioner. There cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition and that position is well settled in law. The disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the inquiry report. That authority is free to disagree with the report and reverse any findings therein, but such exercise should be undertaken only after serving notice on the delinquent informing the delinquent the tentative reasons for the disagreement and if not, it would amount to the violation of the principles of natural justice apart from being violation of requirement under law. Another serious question that falls for consideration in this case is to whether any punishment can be imposed on a pensioner. No doubt, Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules permits continuation of the disciplinary proceedings even after retirement. But what is the purpose of such continuation is the question. Once the master-servant/employer-employee relationship is terminated by superannuation, there cannot be any imposition of punishment. Law also does not postulate and permit 3 retrospective imposition of punishment as well. However, Rules do permit reduction in pension to the extent required subject only to the finding as to whether and how satisfactory was the service rendered by the pensioner. Law also permits recovery of loss, if any, caused by the employee while he was in service. In the instant case, we find that punishment of recovery of Rs. 1. lac has been imposed on the petitioner. That is not permitted under law. Loss admittedly is only to the tune of Rs. 31,475/-. Even assuming there was loss on account of the supervisory lapse on the part of writ petitioner, only recovery to that extent alone is permissible. Pension is not a bounty of the State. Yet, law permits that the State can reduce the pension in case the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory and to the extent it was unsatisfactory. But if the pension is sought to be reduced on the grounds permissible under the rules, the same can be done only with notice to the petitioner. We find that none of these aspects has addressed in the instant case. It is rather sad and if not unfortunate that even the admitted benefits are not paid to the petitioner even after 14 years of his retirement and the delay is only on account of the pendency of the proceedings as indicated above. In respect of an employee, who retired in the year 1996, it took five years to complete the inquiry and thereafter there is delay owing to the pending litigations. In the above circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the following directions are issued, safeguarding interest of all concerned: 1. The impugned proceedings are set aside; 4 2. However, there will be a direction to the disciplinary authority to issue notice to the petitioner showing the tentative reasons for the disagreement with the inquiry report. This shall be done within 6 weeks from today; 3. It will be open to the writ petitioner to submit his representation against that notice within another two weeks; 4. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority shall consider the matter with notice to the writ petitioner and pass final orders within another one month. Unless the proceedings as above, are not completed within the said period of three months indicated above, it shall be deemed that the whole proceedings have been dropped by the disciplinary authority. 5. On culmination of proceedings as above, the eligible benefits to the petitioner shall be disbursed within another one month. The arrears of benefits will carry interest at the rate of 7% after one year of the date of retirement. 6. In case the disbursement, as above is not made, the arrears will carry interest at the rate of 12 % from the date of retirement and the officer responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. The appeal is allowed as indicated above and judgment of the Learned Single Judge will stand modified to the above extent. Copy Dasti. . (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 25, 2010(sl) ( Justice R.B. Misra ), Judge