Retd Judicial Officer Challenges Pension Deduction in SC Over Disciplinary Action

A retired judicial officer from Bihar has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the deduction of 50% of his pension imposed on him during a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Patna High Court.

The officer argues that he was suspended just four days before his retirement based on a complaint regarding a “hasty decision” in a criminal case.

The bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mitthal of the Supreme Court took note of the petitioner’s submission that the particular case, for which he was suspended, was not included in the article of charges framed against him. The case was added as a charge beyond the permissible time of four years, violating the rules.

Senior Advocate Inderjit Mahanty, representing the petitioner, contended that the chargesheet was related to four different cases. Interestingly, the main case for which he faced suspension was added as a supplementary charge after four years, which is not permissible as per the rules.

The petitioner’s defense is that his judgment speaks for itself, and he finds it unprecedented that a final judicial order has become the subject of disciplinary proceedings. He highlighted that despite retiring in 2012, he continues to face indignity due to this matter.

The Case

The petitioner is a retired judicial officer who retired on July 31, 2012. However, just four days before his retirement, on July 27, 2012, he was placed under suspension due to complaints regarding a hasty decision made in a criminal case. The suspension was ordered by the Chief Justice, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Ultimately, in 2017, a penalty was imposed on him, deducting 50% of his pension.

The petitioner then approached the High Court through a writ petition challenging the disciplinary action. However, the High Court, on its judicial side, upheld the disciplinary action and dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition. As a result, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, seeking further recourse and redressal in the matter.