The Calcutta High Court has overturned a previous single-judge ruling and reaffirmed the Union of India’s authority to punish a retired Railway Protection Force (RPF) officer for his alleged negligence in a fake ticket racket. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De delivered the verdict on September 18, 2025, in FMA 1398 of 2019, allowing the appeal filed by the Union of India against former Inspector Dilip Kumar Verma.
The decision settles a long-drawn legal tug-of-war that had stretched over a decade, raising important questions about whether a government department can continue disciplinary proceedings after an employee retires.
Background
Verma, an Inspector in the RPF’s Crime Intelligence Branch at Jamalpur, was suspended in 2010 after being linked to a large-scale fake railway ticket scam. During raids by the RPF and local police, fake tickets, arms, and ammunition were seized from one Kamal Singh, who reportedly confessed that he paid Verma through intermediaries.
Verma retired in February 2012, but the departmental inquiry-initiated before his retirement-culminated in a punishment order dated February 11, 2016, withholding 20% of his pension for three years.
He challenged this punishment before the Calcutta High Court, and in 2019, a single judge ruled in his favour, setting aside the penalty on grounds that the proceedings were invalid after retirement.
Court's Observations
Justice Sujoy Paul, delivering the main judgment, traced the case’s "chequered history" and noted that the core dispute revolved around Rule 9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. This rule allows the government to continue departmental proceedings and impose penalties even after an employee retires-provided the inquiry was initiated while the employee was still in service.
The Bench observed,
"A minute reading of Rule 9(2) makes it clear that if any departmental proceeding was initiated before the employee retired from service, it shall continue under the deeming provision."
The judges also rejected the argument that Verma’s retirement automatically terminated the employer-employee relationship. They said such an interpretation would "defeat the legislative intent" behind the rule. The court stressed that the term 'any departmental proceeding includes those initiated under service rules other than the Pension Rules, so long as they began before retirement.
Quoting the Supreme Court's principle in Nelson Motis v. Union of India (1992), the Bench said,
"The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. It has to be given effect to, irrespective of the consequences."
Defence Arguments
Counsel for Verma had relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India (1990), arguing that no punishment could be imposed post-retirement without an enabling rule. They also contended that the inquiry was under the RPF Rules, 1987, not under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, and therefore couldn’t continue after retirement.
Further, they argued that the alleged acts did not constitute grave misconduct and that no pecuniary loss to the Railway had been proven.
But the Division Bench found these arguments unpersuasive and noted that the charges were indeed grave, involving connivance with a fake ticket racket and gross negligence. The Court remarked,
"Merely because the word 'grave' has not been used in the charge-sheet, it will not reduce the gravity of charges."
Legal Reasoning
The Bench distinguished between cases cited by the defence, including Swapan Kumar Dasgupta v. Union of India, where similar interference was made by a single judge but without examining Rule 9(2). Justice Paul noted,
"In absence of considering the relevant rule, the said judgment cannot be pressed into service."
The court also relied on the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in State of West Bengal v. Pronab Chakraborty, which clarified that a retired employee can face disciplinary action even if no monetary loss was caused-so long as the misconduct is grave.
"It is not only for pecuniary loss that proceedings can continue after superannuation," the Bench quoted.
"An employee can be proceeded against for grave misconduct or negligence."
Decision
Setting aside the single judge's 2019 order, the Division Bench restored the departmental punishment, holding that the Railway authorities acted within their legal rights.
"We have no cavil of doubt that the departmental enquiry initiated during service can continue after retirement under the Pension Rules," the court ruled.
In conclusion, the Bench declared:
"The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated May 1, 2019, is set aside. The intra-court appeal is allowed."
With this, the order withholding a portion of Dilip Kumar Verma's pension stands revived, reaffirming the Railway’s authority to act against retired officers for serious misconduct.
Case Details: Union of India & Ors. vs. Dilip Kumar Verma & Anr.
Case Number: FMA 1398 of 2019
Judgment Date: 18 September 2025