Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2026-01-06 allowed

KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHAN vs THE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS

Bench: 2 — J.K. Maheshwari, Vijay Bishnoi

In Brief

A retired employee of Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation challenged departmental proceedings initiated against him eleven months after superannuation, seeking recovery of alleged financial losses. The High Court partly granted relief on retiral benefits but declined to quash the enquiry. The Supreme Court held that without an express provision in service regulations, disciplinary proceedings cannot be instituted or continued after retirement. Regulation 110 is merely residuary and does not automatically invoke Pension Rule 27 without specific Board adoption. Moreover, Rule 27 requires prior government sanction for post-retirement proceedings, which was absent. The Court quashed the departmental proceedings and ordered release of all withheld retiral benefits, holding that pension rights cannot be forfeited without clear statutory authority.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Service Law Pension and Retirement Benefits Disciplinary Proceedings Administrative Law Judicial Review

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login