Holding

The Corporation lacked jurisdiction to institute or continue departmental proceedings against the retired employee and could not withhold any retiral benefits because Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules cannot be applied without a specific board decision and prior government sanction.

Summary

The appellant, a former Storage Superintendent of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, retired on 31 August 2008 and was later served with a series of show‑cause notices alleging large railway transportation and storage losses during his tenure. After an unsatisfactory reply, the Corporation instituted a departmental enquiry, held him guilty of financial loss amounting to Rs 18,09,809 and withheld his retiral benefits. The appellant challenged the enquiry, arguing that the Corporation lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings post‑superannuation because the 1992 Service Regulations contain no specific provision for such action and the 1982 Pension Rules require prior government sanction. The Supreme Court examined Rule 110 of the 1992 Regulations, which is a residuary clause, and Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules, concluding that the latter cannot be applied ipso‑facto without a conscious board decision and explicit government sanction. The Court held that the Corporation had no authority to continue the enquiry or withhold any retiral benefits and quashed the departmental proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the Corporation was directed to release all retiral benefits to the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether, in the absence of a specific provision in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992, the Corporation could institute departmental proceedings against a superannuated employee by invoking Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Whether a departmental enquiry instituted after retirement can be continued and a punishment imposed, including withholding of retiral benefits, without the mandatory government sanction required under the 1982 Pension Rules.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982s. Rule 27(I)(2)(b)(i)
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992s. Rule 110

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether in absence of any provision in the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 for institution of departmental proceedings against a superannuated employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 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. Headnotes†

Subjects

Service LawSuperannuationRetiral benefitsService RulesService RegulationsLossesRailway transportation lossesFinancial lossJurisdictionDepartmental enquiryRule 27(I)(2)(b)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982Rule 110 of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992

Judgment

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 31 : 2026 INSC 16

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan
v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether in absence of any provision in the Maharashtra State
Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992 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 Maharashtra Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. 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.

Headnotes†
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 – r.27(I)(2)
(b)(i) – Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff)
Service Regulations, 1992 – r.110 – 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 – He was held
responsible for financial loss to the Corporation to the tune
of Rs. 18,09,809/- – Writ petition before the High Court – 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 – Correctness:
Held: 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 r.110 –
It is pertinent to note that, in the present case, in furtherance to
r.110 of 1992 Regulations, no board decision/order/notification

* Author
32 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

adopting 1982 Pension Rules in toto for the employees of the
Corporation has been brought on record – In the context of the
provision of r.27, 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 having sanction of the Government as
required u/r.27(2) (b)(i) for instituting or continuing the proceedings
in the contingency as specified applying the Regulations – The
usage of the word ‘shall’ in r.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 mandate
cannot be diluted or by-passed by the Corporation under the pretext
of general sanction or general practice – Thus, 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 – The impugned departmental proceedings
against the appellant is hereby quashed and the Corporation
is directed to release all the retiral benefits to the appellant.
[Paras 21, 27, 30, 31]

Case Law Cited
Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others [1999]
2 SCR 354 : (1999) 3 SCC 666 – relied on.
Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh v.
K. Satyanarayana Rao (2010) 15 SCC 322; Anant R. Kulkarni v.
Y.P. Education Society and Others [2013] 6 SCR 1124 : (2013) 6
SCC 515 – referred to.

List of Acts
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982; Maharashtra
State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992.

List of Keywords
Service Law; Superannuation; Retiral benefits; Service Rules;
Service Regulations; Losses; Railway transportation losses;
Financial loss; Jurisdiction ; Departmental enquiry; Rule
27(I)(2)(b)(i) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982;
Rule 110 Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff)
Service Regulations, 1992.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 33

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 10858 of 2018

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Anjani Kumar Jha, Varun V. Solshe, Vivek C. Solshe.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Yash Prashant Sonavane, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

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 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
34 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 violated Regulation 741(5) and 742(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,

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.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 35

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

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.
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 4th March, 2017 and further be
pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay to the
petitioner all the retiral benefits such as provident fund,
gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of 6th 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
36 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 1103 of the 1992 Regulations, in cases for which
specific provision has not been made, the Corporation can proceed
under Rule 274 of 1982 Pension Rules. By impugned judgment, the
High Court 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. Varun V. Solshe, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Corporation at the very inception lacked the jurisdiction
to institute the departmental proceedings. Rule 110 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.

3 Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Government of Maharashtra.
4 Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 37

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

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 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 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
38 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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 –
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
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 39

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

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 –
(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.
40 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(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 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 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
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 41

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

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 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
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.
42 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.”
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,
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 43

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

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
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
44 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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;

5 (2010) 15 SCC 322
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 45

Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v.
The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.

or 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.
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.”

6 (1999) 3 SCC 666
46 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 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.
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.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan

7 (2013) 6 SCC 515