Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Judicial Review:—High Court exercised limited jurisdiction to interfere in disciplinary proceedings where penalty imposed was found disproportionate. —Court held that punishment should be reasonable and proportionate. —Judicial review did not extend to re-appreciating findings of disciplinary authority but ensured compliance with statutory provisions. (Para 24-26)

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982—Rule 27(1)—Withholding of Pension:—Disciplinary proceedings initiated before superannuation can continue under Rule 27(1). —Findings on misconduct must be recorded before imposing penalty. —Proceedings need not be terminated or restarted de novo after retirement. —Opportunity to defend was given to petitioner before imposing penalty. (Para 10-15)

Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979—Rule 6, Rule 9—Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Employee:—Proceedings initiated before retirement can culminate in pensionary penalties post-superannuation. —No violation of principles of natural justice found. (Para 11-14)

Issue of Proportionality—Doctrine of Equality—Similar Treatment to Co-Delinquents:—Petitioner was not the sole delinquent for financial irregularities. —Co-delinquent was penalized with 50% pension withdrawal permanently. —High Court reduced petitioner’s penalty from full pension withdrawal to 50% withdrawal permanently. (Para 26-29)

Subjects:

Pension Withdrawal—Disciplinary Proceedings—Superannuated Employee—Financial Irregularities—Proportionality of Punishment—Principles of Natural Justice—Rule 27(1), Pension Rules—Doctrine of Equality—Judicial Review—Departmental Inquiry