Supreme Court: Government sanction required before disciplinary action against retirees

The Supreme Court has ruled that prior sanction from the government is mandatory before initiating departmental proceedings against retired employees under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The court emphasized that this safeguard cannot be diluted or bypassed through general sanction or general practice.

The bench stated that the mandatory safeguard is intended to prevent institution of unwarranted proceedings against superannuated employees. Therefore, such a mandate cannot be circumvented under the pretext of general sanction or general practice.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan against the Bombay High Court decision. The High Court had declined to entertain his writ petition challenging departmental enquiry initiated by the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation after his superannuation.

The Supreme Court held that the Corporation was unable to produce a conscious decision of its Board regarding adoption of Pension Rules. There was no documentation explaining the circumstances for applying the same rules applicable to Maharashtra government employees to Corporation employees in matters of disciplinary proceedings post retirement.

The court concluded that the Corporation had no jurisdiction to institute departmental proceedings against the appellant for alleged misconduct and to direct recovery against him applying the 1982 Pension Rules.

The appellant had retired as Storage Superintendent on August 31, 2008. He was served with a show-cause notice 11 months after retirement, seeking explanation for unresolved railway transportation losses. Following a charge sheet, punishment order was imposed holding him responsible for financial loss of Rs 18,09,809 to the Corporation and directing recovery from him.

The court examined the rules and noted that when departmental proceedings have not been instituted while a government servant was in service or before retirement or during re-employment, and the government wishes to institute proceedings, it may be done only with government sanction.

The bench observed that proceedings instituted post-retirement without obtaining government sanction till culmination as specified in rules, and where cause of action arose prior to four years from date of institution, such proceedings could not have been instituted or continued. The provision is benevolent in nature as it regulates state discretion to institute or continue departmental proceedings.

In this case, the court found two critical failures. First, no resolution or order was passed by the Corporation adopting or applying the 1982 Pension Rules to Corporation employees. The entire exercise was being carried out based on general practice. Second, even assuming the rule was applicable, no document showed that the mandate of prior sanction was complied with.

The court noted that under the 1992 Service Regulations, no board decision, order or notification adopting 1982 Pension Rules in entirety for Corporation employees was on record. The general provision cannot be made applicable automatically until the Board of Directors takes a conscious decision specifying circumstances and making similar benevolent provisions.

The court rejected the Corporation's clarification that general sanction was accorded when the 1992 Regulations received state government approval. The bench found this explanation devoid of discernable logic.

The court emphasized that use of the word "shall" in the rule implies that requirement of sanction from government prior to institution of departmental enquiry is mandatory in nature for each case.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and quashed the departmental proceedings against the appellant. It directed the Corporation to release all retirement benefits to the appellant within eight weeks. The court also ordered that any recovery made from the appellant in the interim would be refunded within the specified period.

The judgment reinforces protection for retired government employees against arbitrary post-retirement disciplinary action and establishes that procedural safeguards requiring prior government sanction must be strictly followed.

Case details: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan vs The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors, decided by a bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi. decided on January 6, 2026