Bombay HC Quashes Pension Forfeiture of Retired Excise Officer Over Caste Misclassification

The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that upheld the forfeiture of pension and gratuity of a retired Central Excise officer accused of wrongly availing reservation benefits under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category.

The Court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him years after the alleged acts were not only belated but in clear violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which prohibits proceedings in respect of events that occurred more than four years prior to their initiation.

A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and N.R. Borkar held that the petitioner, 75 year old Somshekar Kashinath Babaladi, could not be penalized for an administrative mistake made by the department in treating him as belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The Court observed that the petitioner had disclosed his caste as “Hindu Golla,” recognized as a Nomadic Tribe in the State of Karnataka, both in his attestation form and in the service records at the time of joining. Therefore, there was no element of fraud, suppression, or misrepresentation on his part.

The Bench found that the disciplinary action initiated more than three decades after his appointment, and years after his voluntary retirement, was legally unsustainable. “For whatever reasons, if the department proceeded on the footing that the petitioner belongs to ST, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible,” the Court remarked, emphasizing that departmental oversight cannot be used to deprive a retired employee of pensionary entitlements.

Babaladi had joined service as Inspector of Central Excise in 1976 through the Employment Exchange at Dharwad, where his caste was correctly entered as “Hindu Golla.” However, a seniority list issued in 1979 erroneously reflected his caste as “ST.” On the basis of that record, he was promoted to Superintendent in 1991 under the ST category.

In June 2004, he sought voluntary retirement citing his wife’s ill health, which was accepted with a direction that he may later produce his caste certificate for verification. The department thereafter withheld his pension, gratuity, and leave encashment despite there being no pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings at that time.

Four years later, in September 2008, a charge-sheet was issued alleging that he had fraudulently availed reservation benefits both at the time of appointment and promotion. The Inquiry Officer, while holding the charge proved, nevertheless noted that the proceedings were initiated long after the expiry of the four-year limitation prescribed under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Notwithstanding this, the Disciplinary Authority, acting on the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, imposed a penalty in August 2013 permanently forfeiting his entire pension and gratuity. The CAT, in its 2024 order, upheld the forfeiture, observing that the voluntary retirement had been accepted “conditionally” and that the charge-sheet was issued within the permissible period.

The High Court disagreed with this reasoning. It held that the alleged acts, pertaining to the years 1976 and 1991, were not continuing in nature and could not be revived decades later by invoking the “continuing cause of action” theory. The Court explained that Rule 9 was enacted as a protective measure to ensure fairness and finality in service matters, preventing the indefinite exposure of retired government employees to disciplinary action for long-past events.

“The respondents have completely proceeded on the wrong premise that the cause of action is continuous,” the Bench said. It found that the petitioner’s retirement had been validly accepted and that he had begun receiving provisional pension. In such circumstances, the Court held, the respondents lacked authority to institute disciplinary proceedings.

The Bench further noted that the petitioner, despite being deprived of his pension since 2013, had filed an undertaking agreeing to accept only 50% of the arrears of pension payable to him and had waived any claim to interest or the remaining 50%.

Taking into account his age and the equities of the case, the Court accepted his undertaking and directed the authorities to release 50% of the arrears of pension since August 2013, along with the gratuity amount due, within three weeks. It also ordered that regular monthly pension payments be resumed from August 2025.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the CAT’s order and quashed the disciplinary action, restoring the petitioner’s pensionary rights.

“It would be unfair to make the petitioner suffer for no fault of his, when the fault, if any, lies completely with the respondents in overlooking the records,” the Court concluded.

Case Title: Somshekar Kashinath Babaladi v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: Justices M.S. Karnik and N.R. Borkar

Judgment Date: 17.10.2025