Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition, where the order, withholding permanently the previously sanctioned pension to the petitioner, passed by the respondents in exercise of powers under Regulation 4, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1989, was challenged on the grounds of non-application of mind and violative of principles of natural justice, a Single Judge Bench of Anand Sharma, J., set aside the impugned order holding that that the order suffers from complete non-application of mind and is not a reasoned administrative order and that compliance of principles of natural justice is implicit before passing such an adverse order.
Background
The petitioner, aged about 80 years, challenged an order passed by the Chairman and Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, which was passed in exercise of powers under Regulation 4, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1989. Through this order, the pension earlier sanctioned to the petitioner was withheld permanently.
The petitioner, while working as an office assistant in respondent corporation, was convicted under Section 5(1)(c), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 120-B, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to three years imprisonment in 2018.
On his retirement in 2001, the petitioner was sanctioned the pensionary benefits admissible to him. After the conviction, an order was issued by Chief Manager of Central Bus Stand RSRTC, Jaipur in an abrupt manner, withholding the pension of the petitioner permanently without providing any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show-cause notice.
Such order was challenged by the petitioner on the ground of incompetence of the authority issuing order. In view of the order passed by coordinate Bench in such petition, the respondents issued fresh order, by the competent authority in 2021, but again the petitioner was deprived of any opportunity of hearing, nor did he receive any show-cause notice before passing the order in 2021.
Thus, the second order passed in 2021, by the competent authority, was assailed in this writ petition.
Issue
Whether, while exercising powers under Regulation 4, affecting the vested civil rights of retired employee, the respondents were justified in completely dispensing with the principles of natural justice and whether the impugned order reflects due application of mind or not?
Analysis
It was the finding of the Court that Regulation 4 empowers the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or commission of an offence as good conduct is an implied condition for continuance of pension; and the competent authority has discretion to either withhold or withdraw pension in full or in part, either permanently or for a specified period and while exercising such discretion, the authority is required to objectively consider all relevant aspects before choosing a particular course of action.
Thus, as per the Court, the exercise of discretion cannot be mechanical or automatic merely because a conviction has been recorded and the order must disclose application of mind reflecting as to why the authority considered it appropriate to impose the harshest penalty of permanently withholding the entire pension instead of adopting any lesser measure permissible under the Regulation.
The Court observed that the impugned order merely referred to conviction of the petitioner and abruptly directs permanent withholding of the entire pension without recording any reasons or considering relevant factors such as the nature of misconduct, the length of service rendered by the petitioner, the period elapsed after retirement, the financial consequences of complete deprivation of pension, or even the possibility of imposing lesser penalty permissible under the Regulation.
The Court opined that the order suffers from complete non-application of mind and fails to satisfy the requirement of a reasoned administrative order, more particularly when valuable retiral benefits of a retired employee are being permanently taken away.
The Court took note of the contentions on point of natural justice and went on stating that pension is not a bounty but a valuable statutory right earned by an employee after rendering long years of service. Any order resulting in deprivation or permanent withholding of pension undoubtedly entails serious civil consequences. Therefore, the Court held that compliance of principles of natural justice is implicit before passing such an adverse order, unless specifically excluded by the statute.
The Court further observed that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of being heard was afforded before passing the impugned order. Since the respondents contended that grant of opportunity of hearing would have been an empty formality, the Court said that this cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as even after conviction stands proved, the petitioner still had a valuable right to place mitigating circumstances before the authority for consideration regarding the nature and extent of penalty proposed under Regulation 4. Thus, the requirement of hearing was not an empty ritual but a substantive safeguard to ensure fair exercise of discretion by the authority.
Decision
Therefore, on account of gross violation of principles of natural justice and complete non-application of mind while exercising powers under Regulation 4, the Court held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order.
The Court remanded the matter and instructed the competent authority to issue an appropriate show-cause notice indicating the proposed action and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner where he will be at liberty to place all relevant facts and mitigating circumstances. Moreover, the authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order strictly complying with Regulation 4 after due application of mind, within three months.
The Court ordered to restore the pension and any arrears due to the petitioner, till fresh order is passed.
[Ramjilal Jangid v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur, 2026:RJ-JP:19884, decided on 11-5-2026]
Judgment authored by: Justice Anand Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Anshuman Saxena
For Respondents: R.K.Paliwal, R.A.Katta
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
