C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13005 of 2016 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 821 of 2017 ================================================== PRASHANT NATVERLAL DESAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. AKASH K. CHHAYA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 10/07/2025 ORAL COMMON ORDER [1] On 16.03.2012, when the petitioner was working as a Manager (Khadi), District Industries, Jamnagar, he was issued with the charge- sheet in which he was alleged that he had wrongfully claimed travelling allowance and dearness allowance. In the charge-sheet dated 16.03.2012, three charges were alleged against him. The charges were basically that the petitioner had traveled beyond the area of his operation and had failed to refund the travelling allowance and dearness allowance that he had drawn. It was also alleged that it was not clear as to whether this particular tour was for personal purposes or on official duty. Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 [2] About six months after the charge-sheet was issued, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from the service. It may be pertinent to state here that the petitioner had, in fact, submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 18.04.2012. [3] An inquiry was conducted on 07.09.2012, i.e., just before he was to retire and an Inquiry Officer had also submitted a report holding that the charges leveled against him were proved. [4] The show-cause notice had thereafter been issued to the petitioner and despite the representation of the petitioner, which was to the effect that he had deposited the sum of Rs.5,778/- on 18.09.2012 and thereby not caused any pecuniary loss to the employer, the authorities nevertheless consulted the Gujarat Public Service Commission and proposed a punishment of reduction in the pension payment at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. However, the Gujarat Public Service Commission proposed a reduction in the pension of the petitioner by a sum of Rs.6,000/- on a permanent basis. The petitioner was thereafter issued a show-cause notice and informed about the proposed punishment and was called upon to submit a representation. The petitioner thereafter submitted his reply and notwithstanding his reply, the revisional authority C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 proceeded to impose the punishment of reduction in the basic pension of the petitioner by a sum of Rs.6,000/- on a permanent basis. [5] The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court by way of a Special Civil Application No.16861 of 2015, which was partially allowed by this Court on 11.04.2016 and this Court set aside the punishment imposed and directed the respondent to issue a fresh show-cause notice and thereafter take an appropriate decision in the matter. The petitioner was accordingly issued a fresh show-cause notice and despite his reply, the revisional authority once again proposed the punishment of deduction of Rs.6,000/- from the basic pension of the petitioner on a permanent basis. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging this punishment, whereby a sum of Rs.6,000/- is ordered to be deducted from his basic pension for the proved charge of travelling beyond his area of operation and claiming travelling allowance and dearness allowance in this regard. [6] Learned counsel for the petitioner fundamentally submitted that the right of the Government to order of the reduction from the pension would arise only if there is an established pecuniary loss to the Government. He submitted that having regard to the admitted C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 fact that the wrongfully claimed travelling allowance was actually repaid, there was obviously no pecuniary loss caused to the Government which would justify the Government imposing the punishment on the pension. He places strong reliance on Rule 24 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). [7] Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that for the proved misconduct, the State was empowered to impose a punishment which involved the reduction of pension and since the petitioner had, in fact, repaid the travelling allowance which, by itself, indicated an admission of guilt and therefore the order of punishment could not be found fault with. [8] At the outset, it is to be considered as to under what circumstances the Government has a right under Rule 24 of the Rules to withhold or reduce a part of the pension under the Rules. [9] Rule 24 of the Rules reads as follows:- "24. Right of government to withhold or withdraw pension: (1) Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 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 judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon the employment after retirement:" [10] As could be seen from Rule 24 of the Rules, the Government would have the right to order recovery from pension only if there is a pecuniary loss caused to the Government and this pecuniary loss is established in the departmental or judicial proceedings wherein the pensioner was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. This would therefore indicate that there must be a pecuniary loss caused to the Government and this pecuniary loss was attributable to the grave misconduct or negligence on the part of the pensioner. [11] In the instant case, as already stated above, the only allegation of pecuniary loss was that the petitioner had wrongfully claimed travelling allowance. The moment the petitioner repaid this travelling allowance, the question of there being a pecuniary loss would not arise and consequently, the power under Rule 24 of the Rules to withhold a part of the pension would not be available to the Government. Since the right to recover any part of the pension can C/SCA/13005/2016 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 only be under Rule 24 of the Rules and since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government by virtue of the reimbursement of the travelling allowance with the petitioner, it is obvious that the order of recovery cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order, by which a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the basic pension of the petitioner is ordered to be recovered, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Writ petitions stand allowed. Rule is made absolute. Recovery, if any, made from the pension of the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner. (NSSG, J.) DHARMENDRA KUMAR Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: KUMAR DHARMENDRA(HC01071), GOV, at High Court of Gujarat on 14/07/2025 11:53:57