Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi on Tuesday (January 6, 2026) set aside disciplinary proceedings started against a retired employee of a Maharashtra public-sector warehousing corporation almost eleven months after his superannuation, holding that, without an express enabling provision in the employer’s service regulations, such action cannot be initiated or carried forward post-retirement. The dispute arose from allegations of excess storage loss and railway transit loss during his tenure as a centre head, leading to an order for monetary recovery and withholding of retiral dues. Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the enquiry and recovery directions, ordered release of all retiral benefits within eight weeks, and directed refund of any amount already recovered.

The dispute arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by a statutory corporation against one of its employees after his superannuation. The employee had retired on attaining the age of superannuation and, nearly eleven months thereafter, was issued a show-cause notice alleging financial losses during his tenure, including storage losses and railway transit losses. A charge-sheet followed, and a departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry culminated in an order holding the retired employee responsible for pecuniary loss and directing recovery of the quantified amount, along with withholding of certain retiral benefits.

Also Read: Supreme Court Pulls Up CAQM For “Unserious” Approach To Delhi-NCR Air Pollution Crisis; Seeks Report On Principal Reasons & Long Term Solutions

The retired employee challenged these actions on the ground that there was no provision in the applicable service regulations permitting initiation or continuation of departmental proceedings after retirement. It was contended that neither the governing service regulations nor the pension rules, as adopted by the corporation, authorised such action without specific statutory sanction. The corporation defended its action by relying on a residuary clause in its service regulations and by invoking the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, asserting that these enabled post-retirement proceedings and recovery of losses. The High Court declined to examine the merits and relegated the employee to the appellate remedy under the service regulations, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Court first examined the scope of Regulation 110 of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 and recorded that “Rule 110 is general in nature and where specific provisions have not been made in the said Regulations, then in the contingency, as far as possible and to such extent as may be considered appropriate by Corporation, the cases may be regulated in the manner as in the case of government employees.” It further observed that “the adoption of 1982 Pension Rules in Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations is limited” and that such rules “do not have ipso facto application until they have been either adopted or applied by a conscious decision taken at appropriate level.”

While analysing Rule 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the Court stated that “in case the departmental proceedings have not been instituted while government servant was in service… it may be instituted with the sanction of the Government.” The Court clarified that “the usage of the word ‘shall’ in Rule 27(2)(b)(i) implies that the requirement of sanction from the Government prior to institution of departmental enquiry is mandatory in nature for each case.” It further recorded that “such mandatory safeguard is intended to prevent institution of unwarranted proceedings against the superannuated employees.”

After examining the additional affidavit filed by the corporation, the Court noted that “no resolution or order was passed by the Corporation adopting or applying the 1982 Pension Rules to the employees of the Corporation.” It further recorded that “no document has been brought on record to show that mandate of sanction as provided in the said sub rule was complied with.”

Rejecting the plea of implied or general sanction, the Court observed that “the clarification given by the Corporation… that ‘general sanction’ was accorded… is devoid of any discernable logic.” The Court added that “such mandate cannot be diluted or by-passed by the Corporation under the pretext of general sanction or general practice.”

Referring to earlier precedent, the Court quoted with approval that “in the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.”

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

Also Read: RBI Can Permit Non-Repatriable Share Allotment To NRI Against Second-Hand Capital Goods Imports Under FERA Sections 19(1)(D), 29(1)(B); Calcutta HC

The Court directed that “the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set-aside. The impugned departmental proceedings against the appellant are also hereby quashed.” The corporation was directed “to release all the retiral benefits to the appellant within a period of eight weeks. The recovery, if any, made from the appellant in the interregnum, shall also be refunded within the period as specified.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Varun V. Solshe, Adv. Mr. Vivek C. Solshe, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR

Case Title: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 16
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10869 of 2021
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi