Obtaining Diplomatic Passport For Live-In Partner, Children Not 'Grave Misconduct' If Consistently Disclosed To Department: Delhi High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain set aside an order upholding a permanent cut in the pension of a retired Research and Analysis Wing officer and directed the Union government to restore his retiral dues. The Court found that obtaining diplomatic passports for his live-in partner and the two children born from the relationship, after consistently disclosing the family circumstances to the department, did not amount to grave misconduct for withholding pensionary benefits. It ordered release of the withheld 50% monthly pension and 50% gratuity from 1 August 2012 with 6% annual interest and asked the authorities to consider reflecting the partner and children in the pension payment order for family pension and CGHS facilities within eight weeks.
The petitioner, a former Research and Analysis Wing officer appointed in September 1976, married in December 1981 and had a daughter in September 1982. He stated that his wife left him in 1983 and did not consent to divorce. From September 1983, during the subsistence of the marriage, he began cohabiting with another woman, and two children were born in 1984 and 1985. Following a complaint by the wife in June 1990, departmental proceedings were initiated on allegations of neglect by living with another woman, resulting in a pay-reduction penalty in February 1994.
In February 2008, he was inducted into the Special Circuit (MEA) for an overseas assignment. After induction, he sought inclusion of the live-in partner and their children as family members in his service book and obtained diplomatic passports for them in March 2008. A charge memorandum issued in December 2011 alleged breach of Rule 21(2) and Rule 3(1)(i)/(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, including describing the partner as “wife” in a May 2008 proforma and in passport applications.
He denied the charges in January 2012. The inquiry report (October 2013) did not establish two charges and found one partly established; the disciplinary authority recorded disagreement in December 2014 and consulted UPSC under Rule 15(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. UPSC advice (November 2015) treated two charges as proved, and a pension/gratuity cut was imposed in January 2017 under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner argued there was no pecuniary loss, relied on Rule 8/Rule 9 and the exception to Section 494 IPC, and referred to Sections 114 and 50 of the Evidence Act and service records noting “second wedlock”; the respondents alleged concealment in a May 2007 CV, rejection of his February 2008 request, and action under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
The Court stated, "However, we are of the view that the legality of the petitioner’s relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi is not at issue before us. Accordingly, we restrict ourselves to the issue whether the petitioner has exhibited lack of integrity by mentioning the name of Ms. Manihal Devi as his wife and her children as his family for obtaining diplomatic/official passports."
The Court stated, "We find no merit in the said submission of the respondents. The petitioner disclosed his live-in relationship with Ms. Manihal and his wife, Ms. Suman’s, continuous absence, throughout his service. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the charges levelled against the petitioner stem from the same family issue for which Departmental Enquiry had been instituted and he had been punished in 1994, with imposition of a major penalty. Therefore, the petitioner’s relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi was a part of his service records, and there was no concealment by the petitioner."
The Court recorded the Inquiry Officer’s assessment, "He has not tried to fraudulently incorporate the names in the family particulars proforma submitted on 7.5.08. Cross-examination of the Prosecution Witness-I has brought out that the CO’s earlier representation (PE-1) for inclusion of these names in the service records had been turned down on 3.4.08 (PE-2) so the Pers Division was well aware of his position."
On the pension rule threshold, the Court stated, "The said Rules empower the respondents to withhold or withdraw pension of a government servant in cases of ‘grave misconduct or negligence’. In the instant case, we find that the petitioner disclosed throughout his service, his relationship with Ms. Manihal and his wife, Ms. Suman’s continuous absence. The record of the same was also available with the respondents in form of the disciplinary proceedings culminating on 01.02.1994, with the imposition of a major penalty on the petitioner. He has therefore not committed any ‘grave misconduct or negligence’ as contemplated under Rule 9, as referred hereinabove. He has also not concealed anything from the respondents."
Addressing the characterization of the conduct and the basis adopted, the Court stated, "While a Government servant charged with lack of devotion to duty, may be held guilty of grave misconduct, depending upon the nature and gravity of the conduct, the learned Tribunal erred in characterizing the petitioner’s actions as ‘grave/gross misconduct’, as the petitioner never concealed his relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi. In view of this, the Disciplinary Authority’s assertion that the petitioner lacks personal integrity is also misconceived. Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the learned Tribunal was correct in upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Treating respondent’s efforts to include Ms. Manihal Devi and her children in the family details proforma as the sole basis for establishing grave misconduct is erroneous. Further, neither was any charge of pecuniary loss framed against the petitioner, nor were there any findings on the same."
The Court directed: “In light of the aforesaid, the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his monthly pension and gratuity amount, with effect from 01.08.2012.”
“Accordingly, we direct the respondents to release the aforesaid amounts to the petitioner, along with interest on the delayed payments at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date they became due to the date of actual payment. The respondents are further directed to consider the petitioner’s plea to include the name of Ms. Manihal Devi and her children in the Pension Payment Order for family pension and CGHS facilities.”
“The above directions must be complied with by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC for UOI
Case Title: Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India through Secretary (R) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:66-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1414/2019
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain
