In a significant ruling on post-retirement disciplinary action, the Supreme Court of India has set aside departmental proceedings initiated against a retired employee of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation. The Court held that, in the absence of a clear legal provision and mandatory government sanction, such proceedings could not continue after superannuation.
The judgment brings relief to Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan, a former Storage Superintendent, whose retirement benefits had been withheld for years following allegations of financial loss.
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Man Booked for Online Posts, Says Peaceful Criticism
Background of the Case
Pathan retired from service on 31 August 2008 after nearly four decades with the Corporation. Almost 11 months later, he received a show-cause notice alleging excess storage loss and railway transit loss during his tenure as Centre Head between 2006 and 2008.
Despite his retirement, a departmental enquiry was initiated. The Corporation eventually passed an order holding him responsible for losses exceeding ₹18 lakh and directed recovery. His gratuity, provident fund, and other retiral benefits were partly withheld.
Aggrieved, Pathan approached the Bombay High Court, which declined to examine the merits and instead directed him to pursue a departmental appeal. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Quashes MPCB Circular, Restores Green Gene's Right to Collect Hazardous
The core question was whether the Corporation had the authority to initiate and continue disciplinary proceedings after an employee’s retirement, especially when:
- The service regulations did not expressly permit such action, and
- No prior sanction of the State Government was obtained, as required under pension rules.
Court’s Observations
After examining the service regulations and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, the Bench made crucial findings.
Read also:- Gujarat High Court Seeks Policy Records to Verify Supreme Court Compliance on Prisoner Remission
The Court noted that Regulation 110 of the Corporation’s service rules was only a residuary provision. It did not automatically import state pension rules unless the Corporation took a conscious and formal decision to adopt them.
Importantly, the Bench observed that even if the pension rules were assumed to apply, they clearly required specific government sanction before starting any departmental enquiry after retirement.
As recorded during the hearing, “Such mandatory safeguards cannot be diluted by general practice or assumed approval,” the Court remarked, rejecting the Corporation’s argument of implied sanction.
The judges also relied on earlier Supreme Court precedents which consistently held that, without explicit authority, disciplinary proceedings lapse upon retirement.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Career of MP Judge, Sets Aside Removal Over Bail Orders After 27 Years
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside:
- The Bombay High Court’s order, and
- All departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant after retirement.
The Court directed the Corporation to release all retiral benefits within eight weeks and refund any recovery already made.
With this, the long-running dispute came to an end, reaffirming that retired employees cannot be subjected to disciplinary action unless the law clearly permits it and procedural safeguards are strictly followed.
Case Title: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan v. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10869 of 2021
Case Type: Service Law – Post-Retirement Disciplinary Proceedings
Decision Date: 6 January 2026
