W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 1 of 20

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 19.11.2025

Pronounced on: 07.01.2026

+ W.P.(C) 1414/2019

BIRENDRA SINGH KUNWAR .....Petitioner

Through: In person (through V/C)

versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY (R) AND ANR

.....Respondents

Through: Ms. Arti Bansal, CGSC for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

MADHU JAIN, J.

1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the

Order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the

‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 202/2018, titledBirendra Singh Kunwar v.

Union of India through Secretary (R) & Anr.,whereby the learned

Tribunal dismissed the said O.A., observing as under:

“14. It is also well settled that there is no bar

in continuance of the disciplinary proceedings

even after the retirement of the Government

servant for imposing the punishment as

contemplated under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972, as held by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Secretary, Forest

Department vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, AIR

2009 SC 2925).

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 2 of 20

15. Having regard to the aforesaid legal

positions, now this Court will examine the

issue involved in this case. As it is an admitted

position that the applicant, while filling a

proforma to be submitted at his headquarter

had mentioned the name of Ms. Manihal Devi

as his wife whereas as per the records, his

wife's name is Ms. Suman and the marriage of

the applicant with Ms. Suman still subsists as

there was no legal divorce nor dissolution of

marriage between them and further the

applicant applied for passports by mentioning

his live-in companion Ms. Manihal Devi as his

wife and two children born out of his

cohabiting with Ms. Manihal Devi as his

dependent family members and the applicant

managed to obtain diplomatic passports

fraudulently in respect of the said woman and

her two children with the malafide intention of

taking them with him abroad in place of his

legally wedded wife and legal children,

although the applicant tried to justify his act

by referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court

judgments on the issue of live-in relation as

well as certain communications made with the

departments, as stated in the OA. But the

aforesaid admitted facts cannot said to be

justified on the said grounds until and unless

the same is supported by law or rules on the

subject and the law of the land with regard to

Government servant is that Government

servant cannot do any bigamous act, as the

same is a grave/gross misconduct. The

applicant himself admitted that his marriage

with his legally wedded wife still subsist as

there is no divorce/dissolution of same till

date. Hence, as he is bound by Government

rules, he was correctly proceeded against and

we are also in full agreement with the

contentions raised by the respondents in their

counter affidavit. We have also carefully

perused the impugned order dated 16.1.2017

(Annexure A-1) and found that there is no

illegality in the said Order. Rather the same is

a very detailed order in which each and every

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 3 of 20

aspect of the issues involved in this case have

been clearly spelt out.

16. In the result, and for the foregoing

reasons, we do not find any illegality in the

impugned order and accordingly, the present

OA is dismissed, being devoid of merit. There

shall be no order as to costs.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

2.The brief background of the facts in which the present petition

arises is that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Field Officer

(‘DFO’) (General Duty) in the Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet

Secretariat on 20.09.1976. He married Ms. Suman Kunwar on

11.12.1981, and a daughter was also born out of this wedlock on

18.09.1982. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1983, his wife, Ms.

Suman deserted him and refused to grant him a divorce, since then she

has been absent from his life.

3.In September 1983, during the subsistence of his marriage with

Ms. Suman, the petitioner started cohabiting with one Ms. Manihal

Devi, and two children, a son (born on 30.05.1984) and a daughter

(born on 30.09.1985), were born from their relationship.

4.Pursuant to a complaint filed by Ms. Suman in June 1990,

departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the

charges of neglecting his wife and daughter by living with another

woman. The proceedings culminated on 01.02.1994, with imposition

of a major penalty of reduction in pay by four stages for a period of

four years.

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 4 of 20

5.Thereafter, in February 2008, the petitionerwasinducted into

the Special Circuit (Ministry of External Affairs) for an overseas

assignment. After induction, he submitted a representation dated

14.02.2008, seeking inclusion and recognition of Ms. Manihal Devi as

his wife and their two children, as his family members in his Service

Book, on the basis of long cohabitation. Subsequently, he applied for

and obtained diplomatic passports for himself and the aforesaid family

members from the Ministry of External Affairs on 13.03.2008.

6.The petitioner took over as Under Secretary, on promotion, on

11.08.2010. On 14.11.2011, he submitted his pension papers, as he

was due for superannuation on 31.07.2012. However, on 16.12.2011,

he was served with Charge Memorandum No. 4/l/2010-DO.II(A)

dated 14.12.2011,videwhich a disciplinary inquiry was initiated

against him on the following Articles of Charges:

"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I

That the said Shri B.S. Kunwar, SFO (DG)

{now US(DG)}, ID No. 10928-T was inducted

into Special Circuit in February 2008 for

assignment abroad. After induction in Special

Circuit i.e. MEA, he has submitted a

representation for inclusion in his service

records the name of Ms. Manihal Devi who

was living with him for the last 24 years. He

has further mentioned that he was having a

living-in relationship with this lady and two

children born out of his cohabitation with Ms.

Manihal Devi. As per official records, Shri

Kunwar was married with Ms. Suman

according to the Hindu Rites and customs. The

marriage of Shri Kunwar to Ms. Suman still

subsists as it has not been annulled by any

divorce/dissolution of marriage as per Hindu

Marriage Act, Government servant are,

however, restricted regarding marriage - (i)

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 5 of 20

no Govt. servant shall enter into or contract, a

marriage with a person having a spouse living

and (ii) no Govt. servant having a spouse

living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage

with any person. The commission of act by

Shri Kunwar is against Rule 21 (2) of CCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Further, such a

marriage is null & void under the Hindu

Marriage Act 1955.

By his aforesaid acts of omission and

commission i.e. the said Shri B.S. Kunwar,

SFO (DG) {now US(DG)} has exhibited lack

of absolute integrity and has acted in a

manner which is highly unbecoming of a

Government servant and has thereby, violated

Rule 3 (l)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,

1964.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II

That the said Shri B.S. Kunwar, SFO (DG)

{now US(DG)} while posted at Hqrs., Cabinet

Secretariat, New Delhi submitted his

particulars as a Group 'A' officer on

07.05.2008. In the said proforma, he

mentioned the name of Ms. Manihal Devi as

his wife. Whereas, as per the records, his

wife's name is Ms. Suman. The marriage of

Shri Kunwar with Ms. Suman still subsists as

there was no legal divorce nor dissolution of

marriage between them.

By his aforesaid acts of omission and

commission i.e. the said Shri B.S. Kunwar,

SFO (DG) {now US(PG)} has committed

serious misconduct by exhibiting total lack of

absolute integrity and has conducted himself

in a manner which is highly unbecoming of a

Government servant. He has, thereby violated

Rule 3(I)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,

1964.

ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III

That the said Shri B.S. Kunwar, SFO (DG)

{now US(DG)} was inducted to Special

assignment for posting abroad during

February 2008. That the said Kunwar

misrepresented the fact with the intention of

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 6 of 20

cheat and mislead the Department and applied

for passports by mentioning his live-in

companion Ms. Manihal Devi as his wife and

two children born out of his cohabiting with

Ms. Manihal Devi as his dependent family

members. Shri Kunwar managed to obtain

diplomatic passports fraudulently in respect of

the said woman and her two children with the

malafied intention of taking them with him

abroad in place of his legally wedded wife and

legal children.

By his aforesaid acts of omission and

commission, the said Shri B.S. Kunwar, SFO

(PG) {now US(DG)} has committed serious

misconduct by exhibiting lack of absolute

integrity and has conducted himself in a

manner which is highly unbecoming of a

Government servant. He has, thereby violated

Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules,

1964.”

7.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 112/2012

before the learned Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid Charge

Memorandum, however, the same was dismissed on 12.01.2012 at the

admission stage, and the proceedings continued against the petitioner.

8.In the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner,videReply dated

13.01.2012, denied all the charges levelled against him.

9.The Inquiring Officer,videits Report dated 03.10.2013,

submitted its findings, holding that the Articles of Charges I & II

against the petitioner did not stand established and that the Article of

Charge III stood only partially established.

10.However, the Disciplinary Authority issued a Disagreement

Note dated 29.12.2014 on the findings of the Inquiring Authority with

respect to Articles of Charge II & III and held them to be proved

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 7 of 20

against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority observed that the

petitioner had misrepresented while applying for diplomatic passports,

and on the basis of such misrepresentation, he had misled the

concerned authorities in getting diplomatic/official passports issued to

persons who were legally not his family members thus, warranting the

penalty of withholding his pensionary benefits.

11.Subsequently, in terms of Rule 15(3) of the Central Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter

referred to as, CCS (CCA) Rules), the statutory advice of the Union

Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’) was sought on the quantum of

punishment.Videletter dated 05.11.2015, the UPSC considered

Articles of Charge II & III as proved, observing as under:

“a) Article of Charge- II

xxxx

5.9 The commission observe that the CO

should have taken action to annul his

marriage in a court of law. Instead of that, he

mentioned the name of Ms. Manihal Devi as

his wife and thereby committed serous

misconduct by exhibiting lack of integrity and

violated Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of CCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

b) Article of Charge-III

xxxx

5.15 The commission observe that as per

record the CO misrepresented while applying

for passport and misled the authorities in

getting diplomatic/official passports issued to

persons who were not legally his family

members/dependents. Therefore, Article-III of

the Charge also stands established against the

CO.”

12.In view of the above, the UPSC advised that a penalty of

permanently withholding fifty percent (50%) of the monthly pension

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 8 of 20

otherwise admissible and 50% of the gratuity admissible, on a

permanent basis, should be imposed on the petitioner. The said

penalty was imposed upon him under Rule 9(1) CCS (Pension) Rules,

1972 (hereinafter referred to as, CCS (Pension) Rules),videOrder

dated 16.01.2017.

13.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, the

petitioner preferred the Impugned O.A. before the learned Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal, however, was pleased to dismiss the O.A.,

aggrieved of which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

14.The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the learned

Tribunal erred in not quashing the penalty order dated 16.01.2017. He

places reliance upon Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which

pertains to the President’s right to withhold or withdraw pension in

certain cases and recover the pecuniary loss caused to the

Government. He submits that in the present case, there is neither any

charge nor any finding against him of having caused any pecuniary

loss to the Government.

15.The petitioner further submits that the respondent's

interpretation of Rule 9(1), that pension and gratuity can be reduced

even if there is no pecuniary loss caused, is untenable, being in

conflict with Rule 8 thereof. Rule 8, read with GID(1), provides that

after pension is sanctioned, its continuance depends on future good

conduct, and it cannot be stopped or reduced except under Rule 8 for

grave misconduct and serious crime.He submits that his acts do not

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 9 of 20

constitute a grave misconduct and therefore, the Disciplinary

Authority has encroached upon the President's exclusive jurisdiction,

which is intended to safeguard the interest of pensioners.

16.The petitioner further submits that the Disciplinary Authority

approved the reduction of his pension and gratuity and consulted the

UPSC under Rule 15(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which applies only

when penalties prescribed under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules are

to be imposed against a serving government servant and does not

authorize such action in cases under Rule 9.

17.The petitioner further submits that his earlier marriage does not

subsist in the light of the second part of the Exception to Section 494

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), owing to the continuous

absence of his former wife, Ms. Suman, since March-April 1983. He

submits that Ms. Manihal Devi is his only wife by virtue of the

prolonged cohabitation with him since September 1983, and

consequently, his statement regarding his family details and in the

application for passports was factually and legally correct. He places

reliance on the findings of the Inquiry Officer that, "the Charged

Officer has continuously cohabited with Ms. Manihal Devi for almost

30 years now and that relationship has acquired a sense of finality”.

He submits that under Section 114 read with Section 50 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, the Supreme Court has held in several Judgments

that if a man and a woman cohabit for a number of years, there arises

a presumption of wedlock and their children are legitimate. In support,

he also places reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

S.P.S Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan & Ors,(1994) 1 SCC 460.

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 10 of 20

18.The petitioner submits that there was no concealment of

information, the respondents were aware of his cohabitation with Ms.

Manihal Devi when he was cleared for induction to MEA as the

respondent department had the record of the earlier Disciplinary

Enquiry held against the petitioner on the issue of his cohabitation. He

also makes reference to the service records for family pension which

mention his relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi as ‘a second

wedlock’ and accepts their children for family pension. He submits

that the same had been added following the advice of the Department

of Personnel and Training (‘DoP&T’) and the Ministry of Law and

Justice, allowing entering of names/details of children from the second

wedlock.

19.Further, he submits that having already been inflicted with a

punishment in 1994, imposing another penalty on him now for the

same family issue amounts to double jeopardy.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

20.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the petitioner, while holding the post of Senior Field

Officer (GD), was inducted for an overseas assignment. While filling

a proforma required to be submitted by Group ‘A’ officers, he

mentioned the name of Ms. Manihal Devi, his live-in partner, and her

two children, as his family members, despite the fact that his marriage

with Ms. Suman Kunwar subsisted and had not been annulled by

divorce or dissolution of marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 11 of 20

21.Learned counsel further submits that Ms. Manihal Devi's

application for passport showed the petitioner as her husband/spouse,

while the passports of their children showed him as the father, whom

they were to accompany/visit. He submits that the petitioner obtained

diplomatic passports with themala fideintention to take them abroad

in place of his legally wedded wife and the legitimate child.

Consequently, he was recalled from his attachment with the MEA, and

a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him under Rule 14 of

the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, leading to the impugned penalty order.

22.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner

hadmalafideintentions and had concealed facts concerning his family

circumstances by mentioning ‘wife estranged since 1983, Department

knows’ in his Curriculum Vitae (‘CV’) dated 08.05.2007 and leaving

the family particulars column blank. Consequently, when his CV was

forwarded to the MEA, the family particulars column remained blank.

Formal efforts to include Ms. Manihal Devi and her two children to

the family particulars were initiated by the petitioner only after he

joined MEA on 12.02.2008,videhis request dated 14.02.2008.

However, this request for inclusion of their names in family

particulars was rejected by Cabinet Secretariat on 03.04.2008.

Meanwhile, without awaiting the decision on his request dated

14.02.2008, the petitioner, on 13.03.2008, applied for and

subsequently obtained diplomatic passports in the names of these

three persons, claiming them to be his family members.

23.The learned counsel also submits that the UPSC was consulted

in the matter of the petitioner and as per the UPSC advice dated

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 12 of 20

05.11.2015, the petitioner was found guilty and the imposed

punishment was suggested. The UPSC opined that the petitioner had

committed grave misconduct by exhibiting lack of integrity and did

not mend his ways despite a major penalty imposed on him in 1994.

24.He further submits that the petitioner’s claim of double

jeopardyismisplaced. In this regard, he submits that the first

DepartmentalEnquiry in 1991 was conducted on the charges of

neglecting hislegally wedded wife and daughter by living with

another woman, whereas,thesecond Departmental Enquiry was

conducted for fraudulently obtaining adiplomatic passport for his

live-in companion and the two children born from their illicit

relationship, by suppressing the material facts, with the intention to

cheatand mislead the Department.

25.The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that it

being a premier securityorganisation, high standards of integrity and

personal and professional excellenceare expected from its officials.

However, the petitioner, by his acts failed to maintain the requisite

high standards of personal integrity. His conduct was not only callous

but alsoviolated the personal ethics, considering his association with

an organisation of a sensitive nature.

26.In support of the aforesaid submissions, he places reliance upon

the Judgments of the Supreme Court inSecretary, Forest Department

& Ors. v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury,(2009) 7 SCC 305, to emphasize

upon Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which is identical to Rule 10(1)

of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as ‘West Bengal Rules’), andUnion of India

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 13 of 20

v. B. Dev,(1998) 7 SCC 691, which involves interpretation of Rules 8

and 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

27.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for

the parties.

28.The issue that arises for consideration is whether the

respondents were justified in imposing the penalty of permanently

withholding 50% of the petitioner’s monthly pension and gratuity, by

holding the Articles of Charge II & III levelled against the petitioner

to be proved.

29.We begin our discussion with Section 494 of the IPC (now

Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). The petitioner

contends that his first marriage does not exist in light of the second

part of the Exception to the Section. He contends that his first wife,

Ms. Suman, deserted him in March 1983 and had been continuously

absent from his life for over thirty years without any communication,

Consequently, his subsequent relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi,

formalized through prolonged cohabitation, is not illegal. We find no

merit in the said submission of the petitioner. 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.

30.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner has concealed material facts and circumstances, and has

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 14 of 20

misrepresented with the intention to cheat and mislead the

Department. 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.

31.The record clearly establishes that the petitioner never

concealed his relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi. He consistently

disclosed Ms. Manihal Devi and her children in the service records,

identifying her as his wife based on prolonged cohabitation for the

purposes of family pension benefits. It is also on records of the

Inquiry Officer acknowledged three-decade long cohabitation and

opined that the department had, to some extent, acknowledged that the

petitioner’s real family comprises of Ms. Manihal Devi. The Inquiry

Officer also took note of the fact that the petitioner’s earlier

representation to include names of Ms. Manihal Devi and their

children had been turned down, indicating the respondent’s knowledge

of the petitioner’s family affairs. The relevant portions read as under:

“Having said this, there is no denying the fact

that the CO has continuously cohabited with

Ms. Manihal Devi for almost 30 years now

and that relationship has acquired sense of

finality, whether sanctioned by law or not. He

is not a philanderer and his actions have been

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 15 of 20

guided by the intention of providing what is

best for what he believes to be his real family.

xxxx

Actions of the CO in seeking legitimacy for his

relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi and their

children, therefore, need to be viewed in the

context of his extenuating circumstances. 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.”

32.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner maintained

transparency, at all times, with the respondents, regarding his

relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi, and had nomala fideintention to

obtain diplomatic passports through misrepresentation or by

defrauding the Department.

33.The penalty imposed upon the petitioner was subsequent to the

Departmental Enquiry under Rule 9 of the CCS(CCA) Rules. In

Secretary, Forest Department & Ors.(supra), the Supreme Court

relied upon Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Rules,which empowers the

Governor to withhold pension where the pensioner is found, through

departmental or judicial proceedings, to have caused pecuniary loss to

the Government through grave misconduct or negligence during

service. Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Rules reads as under:

“10.Right of the Governor to withhold

pension in certain cases.

(1) The Governor reserves to himself the

right of withholding or withdrawing a

pension or any part of it whether

permanently or for a specified period,

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 16 of 20

and the right of ordering the recovery

from a pension of the whole or part of

any pecuniary loss caused to the

Government, if the pensioner is found in

a departmental or judicial proceeding to

have been guilty of grave misconduct or

negligence, during the period of his

service, including service rendered on

re-employment after retirement:

Provided that—

(a) such departmental proceeding if

instituted while the officer was in

service, whether before his retirement or

during his re-employment, shall after the

final retirement of the officer, be deemed

to be a proceeding under this article and

shall be continued and concluded by the

authority by which it was commenced in

the same manner as if the officer had

continued in service;

(b) such departmental proceedings, if

not instituted while the officer was in

service, whether before his retirement or

during his re-employment—

(i) shall not be instituted save with the

sanction of the Governor;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event

which took place more than four years

before such institution; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority

and in such place as the Governor may

direct and in accordance with the

procedure applicable to departmental

proceedings in which an order of

dismissal from service could be made in

relation to the officer during his service;

(c) no such judicial proceeding, if not

instituted while the officer was in

service, whether before his retirement or

during his re-employment shall be

instituted in respect of a cause of action

which arose on an event which took

place more than four years before such

institution; and

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 17 of 20

(d) the Public Service Commission, West

Bengal, shall be consulted before final

orders are passed.

Explanation—For the purpose of this

article—

(a) a departmental proceeding shall be

deemed to have been instituted on the

date on which the statement of charges is

issued to the officer or pensioner, or if

the officer has been placed under

suspension from an earlier date, on such

date; and

(b) a judicial proceeding shall be

deemed to have been instituted—

(i) in the case of criminal proceeding, on

the date on which the complaint or

report of police officer, on which the

Magistrate takes cognizance, is made,

and

(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on

the date on which the plaint is presented

or, as the case may be, an application is

made to a civil court.”

34.Similarly, inB. Dev(supra), the Supreme Court examined the

scope of Rules 8 and 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, and held that

while Rule 8 makes the grant and continuance of pension subject to

pensioner’s future good conduct, Rule 9 vests in the President with the

authority to withhold or withdraw pension or gratuity, wholly or

partly, upon proof of grave misconduct or negligence in departmental

or judicial proceedings, subject to mandatory consultation with the

UPSC before passing such orders. Rules 8 and 9 of the CCS (Pension)

Rules as they stood at the relevant time read as under:

“8. Pension subject to future good

conduct

(1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an

implied condition of every grant of

pension and its continuance under these

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 18 of 20

rules.

2 (b) The appointing authority may, by order

in writing, withhold or withdraw a

pension or a part thereof, whether

permanently or for a specified period, if

the pensioner is convicted of a serious

crime or is found guilty of grave

misconduct.

xxx

(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a

serious crime by a Court of Law, action

under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the

light of the judgment of the court

relating to such conviction.

xxx

9. Right of President to withhold or

withdraw pension

1[(1) The President reserves to himself

the right of withholding a pension or

gratuity, or both, either in full or in part,

or withdrawing a pension in full or in

part, whether permanently or for a

specified period, and of ordering

recovery from a pension or gratuity of

the whole or part of any pecuniary loss

caused to the Government, if, in any

departmental or judicial proceedings,

the pensioner is found guilty of grave

misconduct or negligence during the

period of service, including service

rendered upon re-employment after

retirement :

Provided that the Union Public Service

Commission shall be consulted before

any final orders are passed.

35.The said Rules empower the respondents to withhold or

withdraw pension of a government servant in cases of ‘grave

misconduct or negligence’.

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 19 of 20

36.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.

37.The Judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the

respondents cannot come to their aid, the same having being decided

in entirely different facts and circumstances.

38.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.

39.Further, neither was any charge of pecuniary loss framed

against the petitioner, nor were there any findings on the same.

W.P.(C) 1414/2019 Page 20 of 20

40.We, therefore, find no legitimate reason for the respondents to

permanently withhold 50% of the petitioner’s monthly pension and

gratuity or for denying family pension to the petitioner’s dependents.

CONCLUSION

41.In light of the aforesaid, the Impugned Order passed by the

learned Tribunal cannot be sustained, and is hereby set aside.

42.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.

43.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.

44.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.

45.The above directions must be complied with by the respondents

within a period of eight weeks from today.

46.The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

MADHU JAIN, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

JANUARY 07, 2026/Av