2026 INSC 16 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 10869 OF 2021)

KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING

CORPORATION & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

J.K. MAHESHWARI J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Assailing the final judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by

the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench

at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Writ

Petition No. 10858 of 2018, disposing-of the writ petition with

directions to the appellant (retired employee) to prefer appeal

1

REPORTABLE

against the order of disciplinary authority directing recovery, the

instant appeal has been preferred.

3.The issue in the present lis revolves around the institution

of the departmental enquiry by the respondent – Maharashtra

State Warehousing Corporation (for brevity, ‘Corporation’)

against the appellant after his superannuation in absence of any

provision in the governing service rules and regulations, i.e.,

‘Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (in short ‘1982

Pension Rules’)’ and ‘Maharashtra State Warehousing

Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 (in short ‘1992

Regulations’)’.

4.The case of the appellant before High Court was that he had

superannuated from the service as ‘Storage Superintendent’ on

31.08.2008, whereafter, he was served with a show-cause notice

seeking explanation for unresolved railway transportation losses.

A charge-sheet was served to him, which was followed by the

punishment order, whereby he was held responsible for financial

loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/-, directing

recovery against him. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred writ

petition inter-alia praying for quashing of show-cause notice as

2

well as the action taken in furtherance thereto. The High Court

vide impugned judgment refused to entertain the writ petition

and disposed it off with directions to take recourse of appeal

specified in the 1992 Regulations. Hence, the present appeal.

FACTS

5.Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts put in brief are that

the appellant had joined the Corporation on 04.01.1969 and

superannuated on 31.08.2008 as Storage Superintendent. After

approximately 11 months, based on the allegations of storage loss

and Railway Transit Loss (RTL) to tune of Rs. 22,22,561/- and

Rs. 15,20,666/- between March, 2006 to June, 2008 during his

tenure as ‘Centre Head’, a show-cause notice dated 18.08.2009

was served to the appellant, inter-alia alleging that on review,

increase in storage loss was found from 1% to 5.75% and 6.87%

and transportation loss was also much higher than reasonable

and expected amounts. The appellant was asked to submit

explanation within 10 days, failing which, departmental enquiry

would be initiated. Having found the reply of the appellant

unsatisfactory, the Corporation alleged that appellant had

3

violated Regulation 74

1

(5) and 74

2

(13) of the 1992 Regulations

and served him charge-sheet dated 18.02.2010.

6.Appellant vide letter 06.03.2010 submitted reply and denied

the charges, however, he was asked to appear before the Enquiry

Officer on 24.03.2011. The appellant appeared and prayed to

supply the material documents, on which the next was scheduled

on 12.05.2011. The appellant did not appear on the said date on

the pretext of non-supply of the documents. The department

continued the enquiry and served the second show-cause notice

dated 09.11.2012, asking explanation as to why disciplinary

action should not be taken against him on the findings of the

charges which were found partially proved. Disputing the same,

the appellant again submitted a reply, however in vain. The

Corporation vide order dated 10.12.2012 held him responsible for

the losses to the tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and consequently,

withheld his retiral benefits of Rs. 4,43,013/-, inclusive of

gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment.

1 Acts of misconduct – (5) Causing wilful damage to work in process or to any property of

the Corporation.

2 (13) – Indiscipline or breach or flouting of any instructions or orders issued by the

Corporation, from time to time regarding working, conduct etc.

4

7.The appellant through RTI (right to information) found that

the RTL was reduced to Rs. 2,46,461/-, however, on further

contest, the appellant sought release of his retiral benefits. The

Corporation served him with the third show-cause notice dated

20.10.2016 seeking explanation as to why he should not be held

responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of

Rs. 3,70,820/- and why such be not recovered from him. Finally,

the Corporation vide punishment order dated 04.03.2017 found

the appellant guilty and responsible for the financial losses to the

tune of Rs. 18,09,809/- and directed recovery. Out of said

amount, the Corporation withheld the retiral benefits of the

appellant of Rs. 4,43,013/-, and the remaining dues of Rs.

13,66,796/- were directed to be recovered.

8.Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 10858 of

2018 seeking following reliefs:-

“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of

mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the

nature of writ of mandamus and be pleased to quash and

set aside the enquiry and the action, if any, taken

pursuant to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2009;

b.This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside

the communication dated 4

th

March, 2017 and further be

5

pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay to the

petitioner all the retiral benefits such as provident fund,

gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 6

th

Pay Commission

etc. with interest till realization of the amount;

c.This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside

the impugned show cause notice dated 20.10.2016 issued

by the General Manager (QC) of respondent no. 1;

d.Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition,

the respondents be forthwith directed to pay this petitioner

all the retiral benefits such as provident fund, gratuity,

leave encashment etc. with interest till realization of the

amount;

xx xx xx

9.In the backdrop of the facts, the appellant posed the issue of

jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against

him after his superannuation by the Corporation in absence of

having any provisions in the 1992 Regulations. It was said, he

was neither placed under suspension, nor any enquiry was

pending against at the time of superannuation. On the contrary,

it was the case of the Corporation that in terms of Rule 110

3

of

the 1992 Regulations, in cases for which specific provision has

not been made, the Corporation can proceed under Rule 27

4

of

1982 Pension Rules. By impugned judgment, the High Court

3 Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Government of Maharashtra.

4 Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.

6

accepted the contention of the Corporation and said that though

there is no specific provision in the 1992 Regulations for

institution of the departmental proceedings post superannuation,

however, instituting proceedings against the retired employee,

with the aid of Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules can be done in

terms of Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations. On the question of

withholding the retiral benefits, since his service was not

pensionable, it was concluded, as per Rule 9(37) of 1982 Pension

Rules, ‘pension’ includes ‘gratuity’ and hence, the Corporation

was entitled to withhold only gratuity and no other retiral

benefits like provident fund, leave encashment and insurance.

Lastly, considering the remedy of appeal in the 1992 Regulations,

the High Court refrained to delve into the merit and disposed the

writ petition granting liberty to the appellant to challenge the

order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority.

Hence, the present appeal.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENTS

10.Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the Corporation at the very inception lacked the

jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings. Rule 110

7

of the 1992 Regulations deals the contingencies for which a

specific provision in the Regulations has not been made. It is in

the nature of residuary clause (or mere a referral clause), which

equips the Corporation to regulate the matters as far as possible

alike retired ‘employees’ of Government of Maharashtra. It does

not confer jurisdiction to make out a new case for carrying out

departmental enquiry against retired employees of the

corporation.

11.It is further submitted that, the Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension

Rules does not come to the aid, for the reason that as per clause

(b), if departmental proceedings had not been instituted while the

government servant was in service before his retirement, or

during his re-employment, it could not have been instituted

without the sanction of the Government, which was not secured

at appropriate level.

12.Per contra, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel

for the respondent, submitted that in compliance of the order

passed by the High Court, an amount of Rs. 1,89,548/- qua

other retiral benefits except gratuity was already returned to the

appellant vide cheque dated 22.02.2021, which was accepted by

8

the appellant. In this view, estoppel is operative against him to

challenge the order of the High Court.

13.On the issue of jurisdiction to institute the departmental

enquiry, it is urged that such objection was never raised before

the Corporation or at any stage of enquiry or proceedings.

Further, Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations in specific terms

stipulate, all matters for which no specific provision has been

provided, they shall be regulated as far as possible in the same

manner as in the case of the employees of the Government of

Maharashtra. The 1982 Pension Rules are applicable to the

employees of Government of Maharashtra and as per Rule 27, the

Corporation has the right alike Government to withhold or

withdraw the pension of an employee for the financial loss caused

to the Corporation during his tenure.

14. Insofar as requirement of prior sanction of the State

Government as contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of 1982

Pension Rules for instituting departmental proceedings is

concerned, it is said, 1992 Regulations were drafted by the

Corporation and sent to the State Government vide letter dated

04.03.1990 for approval. The State Government had granted

9

approval to the same vide letter dated 31.03.1990, whereafter the

Regulations were published in the Maharashtra State Gazette

Part-IVC dated 02.01.1992. Therefore, once the State Government

had granted approval then it shall include sanction for exercising

power under Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules.

APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS

15.Learned counsel for the parties are heard at length and

records are perused. The question that falls for our consideration

is ‘whether in absence of any provision in the 1992 Regulations for

institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated

employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the

appellant applying Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules? In

case enquiry is instituted after retirement of appellant, whether the

Corporation had the jurisdiction to continue such enquiry and

impose punishment, withholding the retiral benefits and direct

recovery?’

16.Since both the questions are inter-linked, they are taken up

together for discussion and answered simultaneously. Before

10

adverting to the submissions of parties, it is necessary to refer

the relevant Regulations, which are reproduced as thus:-

Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations –

“Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the

Government of Maharashtra – All matters for which

specific provisions have not been made in these

Regulations shall, as far as possible and to such extent as

may be considered as appropriate by the Corporation, be

regulated in the same manner as in the case of employees

of the Government of Maharashtra.”

A bare perusal of above, it reveals, in all such cases for

which there is no specific provision contained in the Regulations,

the Corporation as far as possible and to such an extent, as may

be considered appropriate by it, regulate such cases in the same

manner as in the case of employees of the Government of

Maharashtra. In other words, it is in the nature of miscellaneous

provision, incorporated in the Regulations with an intent to cover

such cases on which the Regulations are silent. If Corporation

considers it appropriate to adopt and to apply the Service Rules

as applicable to the employees of Government of Maharashtra,

they are at liberty to do so.

17.Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules –

11

27. Right of Government to withhold or

withdraw pension

(I) Government may, by order in writing, withhold or

withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently

or for a specified period, and also order the recovery from

such pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss

caused to Government, if, in any departmental or judicial

proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave

misconduct or negligence during the period of his service

including service rendered upon re- employment after

retirement:

Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission

shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in

respect of officers holding posts within their purview:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld

or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not

be reduced below the minimum fixed by Government.

(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in

sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant

was in service whether before his retirement or during his

re- employment, shall, after the final retirement of the

Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under

this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the

authority by which they were commenced in the same

manner as if the Government servant had continued in

service.

(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted

while the Government servant was in service, whether

before his retirement or during his re-employment –

12

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of

the Government,

(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 at such

place as the Government may direct and in accordance

with the procedure applicable to the departmental

proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service

could be made in relation to the Government servant

during his service.

(3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the

Government servant was in service, whether before his

retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted

in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of

an event which took place, more than four years before

such institution.

(4) In the case of a Government servant who has

retired on attaining the age of Superannuation or otherwise

and against whom any departmental or judicial

proceedings are instituted or where departmental

proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional

pension as provided in rule 130 shall be sanctioned.

xx xx xx

On reading of the above, it is luculent that the Government

has the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part

thereof for a limited period or for the period as it deemed fit or

recover the loss, if any, on account of grave misconduct or

13

negligence of the pensioner during his employment or upon re-

employment after retirement, after consultation with the Public

Service Commission. While doing so, in case of withholding or

withdrawing the pension, remaining pension shall not be reduced

to the threshold fixed by the Government.

18.In case the departmental proceedings have not been

instituted while government servant was in service or before his

retirement or during his re-employment, and the Government

wishes to institute the proceedings, it may be instituted with the

sanction of the Government. It is also made clear that the

institution of any proceeding after retirement can be for a cause

which took place within four years prior to the institution.

Similarly, if the proceedings are already instituted, but have not

culminated, they can be continued in the same pace and manner

as specified in Rule 27(1). After institution of the proceedings, if

the government servant attains the age of superannuation and

the proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional

pension as provided in Rule 130 shall be sanctioned.

19.On appreciation of Rule 27(b), it can safely be observed that

in cases where the departmental proceedings were instituted

14

post-retirement without obtaining sanction of the government till

culmination as specified in the rules and simultaneously if the

cause of action of such proceedings arose prior to four years of

date of institution, such proceedings could not have been

instituted or continued. Therefore, the provision is benevolent in

nature, as it regulates the State’s discretion to institute or

continue departmental proceedings.

20.As referred above, in particular Rule 110, which appears to

be a miscellaneous provision and residuary in nature. The

adoption of 1982 Pension Rules in Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations

is limited, when there is no specific provision and if the

Corporation considers it appropriate to apply 1982 Pensions

Rules, the same can be made applicable for the purpose of

regulation of the employees of the Corporation alike the

employees of the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore, 1982

Pension Rules do not have ipso facto application until they have

been either adopted or applied by a conscious decision taken at

appropriate level.

21.On appreciation of the facts of the present case, it is

undisputed that the appellant stood retired on 31.08.2008. The

15

first show cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was served on him

approximately after 11 months from the date of his

superannuation asking explanation with respect to the financial

losses occurred during his tenure as Centre Head. It is the

specific case of the appellant that the Corporation lacks

jurisdiction to institute the departmental proceedings against

him in absence of any provision in 1992 Regulations. Per contra,

the Corporation has tried to make out a case on the anvil of Rule

110, laying much emphasis on the fact that it empowers the

Corporation to deal with the employees of the Corporation alike

the cases of employees of Government of Maharashtra in absence

of any specific provision. Therefore, the case of the appellant

ought to be dealt under 1982 Pension Rules, and accordingly

punishment order was passed against him, directing recovery.

22.In such factual backdrop, when the matter posted for

hearing on 11.11.2025, certain queries cropped up and in the

proceedings, a detailed order was passed, which is reproduced as

thus:-

“1. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

referring to Clause 110 of the Maharashtra State

Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations (For

16

short, the ‘Regulations’) contended that applicability of the

Rules, Regulations and orders of the Government of

Maharashtra is not ipso facto. The said fact finds support

from the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

(for short, the ‘Pension Rules’) which are made applicable

against him in particular clause 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the Pension

Rules. It is further contended by him that by way of

implication of Rules 27(4), those Rules would be applicable

to those employees who are getting pension. In such

circumstances, the interpretation as made by the High

Court is not justified.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

referring to the findings as recorded by the High Court

submits that the Pension Rules have rightly been made

applicable in the facts of the case.

3. After hearing for some time, it is put forth to the

respondent that in furtherance to Clause 110 of the

Regulations, any decision has been taken by the

Corporation indicating the applicability of the Pension

Rules and, in particular, to initiate and continue the

departmental enquiry which was not absolute under the

Pension Rules and is subject to approval by the

Government.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and

is granted a week’s time to ascertain the said fact and to

revert on the same.

5. List on 18.11.2025 immediately after the fresh

miscellaneous matters.”

17

23.In reply, the Corporation filed additional affidavit dated

15.11.2025, stating as thus:-

“7. With regard to two queries specifically raised by

this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing on 11.11.2025, I

submit on the basis of record available with MSWC as

under:-

a. Regulation 110 of Maharashtra State

Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992

contemplates that all matters, for which specific provisions

have not been made under those Regulations of 1992,

shall as far as possible and to such an extent as may be

considered appropriate by the Corporation, be regulated in

the same manner as in the case of employees of

Government of Maharashtra by various Rules, Regulations,

Orders of Government of Maharashtra.

Perusal of MSWC’s record so far, though show that there is

no specific order, circular, either at the instance of MD

and/or Board of Directors of MSWC for adoption and

applicability of Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, but

with utmost respect and accountability, it is submitted that

wording in Regulation 110 does not contemplate any

specific Order/Circular for adoption and applicability of

Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982. But admittedly,

MSWC all along has been consistently resorting to,

applying and adopting Rule 27 of MCS (Pension) Rules,

1982 while taking action against delinquent employee who

has retired.

xx xx xx

18

b. Further, with regard to issue of sanction of the

State Government before instituting enquiry as

contemplated under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of MCS (Pension) Rules,

1982, it is submitted that

(i) Regulations were drafted by MSWC and vide

letter dated 04.03.1990 sent to State Government for

approval.

(ii) State Government (Cooperation & Textile

Department) vide letter dated 31.03.1990 granted

approval.

(iii) Thereafter in Maharashtra Government Gazette

Part IVC (Page 29) dated 02.01.1992, those Regulations

were published.

(iv) Then, Jt. MD vide Circular dated 10.07.1992

circulated those Regulations for the knowledge of all the

Officers and Officers of MSWC.

(v) Thus, admittedly these Regulations came into

force w.e.f. 02.01.1992 i.e., the date of publication in

Government Gazette.

Thus, once State Government has granted approval on

31.03.1990 to entire Regulations; inclusive of Regulation

110 then, it clearly means that for exercising power under

Rule 27(2)(b) of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, State

Government has already granted general sanction on

31.03.1990 itself and more particularly when those

Regulations were published in Maharashtra Government

Gazette on 02.01.1992.

xx xx xx

19

24.The perusal of the averments of additional affidavit, two

things are patently clear; first, that no resolution or order was

passed by the Corporation adopting or applying the 1982 Pension

Rules to the employees of the Corporation and the entire exercise

was being carried out based on general practice; second, even if it

is assumed that Rule 27(2)(b) was applicable in the case of

appellant, no document has been brought on record to show that

mandate of sanction as provided in the said sub rule was

complied with.

25.In reference to the above fact guidance can be taken from a

judgment of ‘Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra

Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana Rao’

5

, wherein the issue arose

regarding a case of alleged financial irregularities with respect to

year 1992-93, for which disciplinary proceeding were initiated

against the delinquent employees in year 1999, i.e., one year prior

to their retirement in year 2000. The proceedings were continued

after the retirement based on the circular dated 29.08.1998,

whereby the Cooperative Corporation in its Board’s resolution for

adoption of the ‘Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules’ and ‘Andhra

5 2010 15 SCC 322

20

Pradesh Fundamental Rules’ to its employees whenever the GCC

service rules of employees are silent, conferred power to the MD

to adopt the same. This Court while interpreting the circular,

opined that indeed MD had the power to adopt, but no such

adoption had been brought to the notice of the Court, therefore,

continuance of the enquiry/departmental proceedings were not

found to be valid.

26.It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, in

furtherance to Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations, no board

decision/order/notification adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto

for the employees of the Corporation has been brought on record.

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. In the context of

the provision of Rule 27, as discussed, it cannot be made

applicable ipso facto until the Board of Directors has taken a

conscious decision specifying the circumstances and making

similar benevolent provision as made in 1982 Pension Rules; or

21

having sanction of the Government as required under Rule 27(2)

(b)(i) for instituting or continuing the proceedings in the

contingency as specified applying the Regulations.

27.Further, the clarification given by the Corporation in its

additional affidavit regarding sanction that once the 1992

Regulations were granted approval by the State Government vide

letter dated 31.03.1990, ‘general sanction’ was accorded for

instituting departmental proceedings under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the

1982 Pension Rules, is devoid of any discernable logic. 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. Such

mandatory safeguard is intended to prevent institution of

unwarranted proceedings against the superannuated employees.

Therefore, such mandate cannot be diluted or by-passed by the

Corporation under the pretext of general sanction or general

practice, hence, stand as taken and the argument put forth by

respondents are repelled.

22

28.At this juncture, it is apposite to refer the judgment in

‘Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and

Others’

6

, wherein this Court while dealing the issue of initiation

of departmental enquiry, in absence of specific provision and its

continuance after retirement, had observed as thus:-

“7. In view of the absence of such a provision in the

abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation

had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral

benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for

conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the

appellant and nor any provision stating that in case

misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from

retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service

on 30-6-1995, there was no authority vested in the

Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even

for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral

benefits payable to the appellant. 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.”

29.In ‘Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and

Others’

7

, this Court inter-alia dealing with a similar question as

to under what circumstances enquiry can be conducted against

6 (1999) 3 SCC 666

7 (2013) 6 SCC 515

23

the delinquent employee who has retired on reaching the age of

superannuation, observed as thus:-

30.After analyzing Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of

1982 Pension Rules and also considering the averments made in

additional affidavit filed as directed on 11.11.2025, the

Corporation was unable to produce a conscious decision of the

Board regarding adoption of Pension Rules and the

circumstances explaining the situation to apply the same rules as

applicable to the employees of the Government of Maharashtra to

the employees of the Corporation in the matter of institution and

continuance of the disciplinary proceedings post retirement. In

light of the above discussions and in view of the judgments

referred hereinabove, the irresistible conclusion can be drawn

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. As such the questions as posed hereinabove are

answered in favour of the appellant against the Corporation.

24

31.Accordingly, 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, and the Corporation is 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.

32.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed-of.

………………………………….J.

(J K MAHESHWARI)

………………………………….J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 06, 2026.

25