Deduction Of Pension For Grave Misconduct Can’t Be Based On One Instance Of Irregularity: Jharkhand High Court

The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the order imposing 15% deduction from the pension of the writ petitioner for a period of five years was quashed.

A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar, while interpreting the scope of Rule 139, observed: “The words ‘thoroughly satisfactory’ under the first condition makes it mandatory that before passing the order of deduction of pension of a pensioner, the State Government should take into consideration the entire service record of the pensioner and not a particular instance of committing irregularity.”

“So far as the order of deduction of pension on the ground of grave misconduct, the State Government has to satisfy itself that in a departmental or judicial proceeding, it has been proved that the pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct. Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to order deduction of pension in exercise of power under rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000”, the Bench added.

Advocate Anish Kumar Mishra appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Manoj Prasad and Advocate Jyoti Kumari appeared for the respondent.

Background

The writ petitioner had joined service as a Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department and was later posted in the Minor Irrigation Division, Bokaro. Allegations were made with respect to financial irregularities in the execution of Micro-lift irrigation schemes during the year 2003–04, based on complaints and enquiry reports submitted by departmental authorities.

A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner during service, to which he replied, denying the allegations. He subsequently retired on 31.12.2016. After his retirement, a second show cause notice was issued under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, proposing the deduction of pension.

An order was thereafter passed directing the deduction of 15% of his pension for a period of five years on the allegation that he had committed irregularities in the execution of works. The writ petitioner challenged the said order, and the learned Single Judge quashed the punishment. The State preferred the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the scheme of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and held that these provisions strictly regulate the circumstances in which a pension can be withheld or reduced. It was observed that Rule 43(b) permits withholding or withdrawal of pension only when the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings, or where pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government.

The Court noted that Rule 139 provides two distinct conditions under which pension may be reduced and clarified: “Thus, following are the two conditions under which the State Government is empowered to reduce the pension of a pensioner:- (i) If the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory, or (ii) There is a proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service.”

Interpreting the first condition, the Court held that an isolated instance cannot form the basis for concluding that the service of an employee was not satisfactory. It reiterated that “by looking to a single instance of irregularity, the authority cannot form an opinion that the service of an employee was thoroughly unsatisfactory to exercise the power under rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000, rather the authority has to examine the entire service record of such employee.”

On the second condition, the Court emphasised that proof of grave misconduct is a mandatory precondition and cannot be presumed. It categorically held: “Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to exercise the power under rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000, rather the same has to be proved in a departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding by giving due opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.”

The Court further examined the procedural safeguards required under Rule 43(b) and found that no full-fledged departmental proceeding had been conducted in the present case. It recorded that no charge-sheet had been issued, no enquiry officer had been appointed, and no regular enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings for dismissal from service.

In this context, the Court held: “the charge of grave misconduct cannot be said to be proved against him, which is a precondition for exercise of power under rule 139(c) of Rules, 2000 by the State Government.”

The Court also, while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Others v. Mohd. Idris Ansari (1995) observed that proof of misconduct must emerge from departmental or judicial proceedings conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Reinforcing the requirement of procedural compliance, the Court reiterated that when a statute prescribes a specific mode of action, the same must be followed strictly and any deviation would render the action invalid.

Conclusion

The High Court held that neither of the conditions prescribed under Rule 139(c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, was satisfied, as the deduction of pension was based on a single instance of alleged irregularity and no grave misconduct had been proved through any departmental or judicial proceeding.

Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of deduction of pension and dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

Cause Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Brajeshwar Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:7690-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgment