Legal Review and Analysis of Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan vs Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors 2026 INSC 16
Case Synopsis
Case: Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan vs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors. 2026 INSC 16
Synopsis : Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Enquiry, Emphasizes Explicit Jurisdictional Authority Over Inferred Powers. The Court ruled that absent specific provision or duly adopted rules, a corporation lacks jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings after an employee's superannuation, and the mandatory requirement of government sanction for such action cannot be substituted by general approval.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan vs. Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10869 of 2021) INSC 16
In the Supreme Court of India
Decided on: January 06, 2026
Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
2. Related Laws, Regulations, and Rules
Primary Service Regulations: Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Service Regulations, 1992.
Regulation 74(5): Acts of misconduct – causing wilful damage to property of the Corporation.
Regulation 74(13): Acts of misconduct – indiscipline or breach of instructions.
Regulation 110: "Application of Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Government of Maharashtra" – the residuary clause.Referenced Government Rules: Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Rule 27: "Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension."
Rule 27(2)(b)(i): Mandates sanction of the Government to institute proceedings after retirement.
Rule 130: Mentions provisional pension.Referenced Precedents (Case Laws):
Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 666.
Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh Vs. K. Satyanarayana Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 322.
Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, (2013) 6 SCC 515.
3. Detailed Facts of the Case
Employment & Retirement: Appellant joined service on 04.01.1969 and superannuated as Storage Superintendent on 31.08.2008. No enquiry was pending at retirement.
Initiation of Proceedings: After ~11 months, a show-cause notice dated 18.08.2009 was issued alleging storage and Railway Transit Loss (RTL) amounting to Rs. 37,43,227/- (Rs. 22,22,561 + Rs. 15,20,666) during his tenure as Centre Head (March 2006-June 2008).
Chargesheet & Enquiry: Chargesheet dated 18.02.2010 under Regulations 74(5) & 74(13). Enquiry proceeded despite appellant's request for documents. A second show-cause notice followed on 09.11.2012.
Punishment Orders:
Order dated 10.12.2012: Held responsible for Rs. 18,09,809/- loss. Withheld retiral benefits of Rs. 4,43,013/- (Gratuity, PF, Leave Encashment).
Order dated 04.03.2017: Reconfirmed guilt for Rs. 18,09,809/-. Directed recovery, with Rs. 4,43,013 already withheld and balance Rs. 13,66,796 to be recovered.High Court Litigation: Writ Petition No. 10858 of 2018 was disposed of vide judgment dated 25.01.2021, directing the appellant to avail appellate remedy. The High Court accepted Corporation's stand that Rule 27 of 1982 Pension Rules could be invoked via Regulation 110.
Interim Compliance: Post-High Court order, Corporation returned Rs. 1,89,548 (non-gratuity benefits) via cheque dated 22.02.2021, which appellant accepted.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether, in the absence of any provision in the 1992 Regulations for instituting departmental proceedings against a superannuated employee, the Corporation could have proceeded against the appellant by applying Rule 27(1)(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules?
In case an enquiry is instituted after retirement, whether the Corporation had the jurisdiction to continue such enquiry and impose punishment by withholding retiral benefits and directing recovery?
5. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Detailed Reasoning)
On Regulation 110: The Court held it is a miscellaneous, residuary provision. It does not automatically import government rules. It only permits regulation "as far as possible" and "to such extent as may be considered appropriate by the Corporation." For adopting external rules like the 1982 Pension Rules, a conscious, specific decision (Board resolution/order/notification) is required. The Corporation failed to produce any such document.
On Application of Rule 27 of 1982 Rules: The Court ruled that Rule 27 does not apply ipso facto. Its application hinges on a valid adoption via Regulation 110, which was absent.
On Mandatory Sanction under Rule 27(2)(b)(i): The requirement of "sanction of the Government" is mandatory and case-specific for each post-retirement proceeding. The Corporation's argument that the State Government's general approval of the 1992 Regulations vide letter dated 31.03.1990 constituted a "general sanction" was rejected. This would defeat the protective purpose of the safeguard.
On Jurisdiction Post-Retirement: Relying on Bhagirathi Jena, the Court reiterated that in the absence of a specific provision authorizing post-retirement enquiry or reduction of retiral benefits, the Corporation lacks jurisdiction. Any such enquiry lapses upon retirement.
Findings from Additional Affidavit: The Court noted the Corporation's affidavit dated 15.11.2025 admitted: (a) No specific order/circular adopting Rule 27 existed, and (b) No specific sanction as per Rule 27(2)(b)(i) was obtained for the appellant's case.
6. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
Title: The Impermissibility of Inferred Jurisdiction for Post-Retirement Disciplinary Actions
Main Issue Body
The Supreme Court addressed the fundamental question of whether a statutory corporation can wield disciplinary power over an employee after the relationship of master and servant has ended, based on a residuary clause and unadopted external rules.
In-Depth Analysis
The judgment is a robust affirmation of legal certainty and protection of retired employees. The Court constructed a strict interpretative framework:
Silence of Rules is Prohibition: The 1992 Regulations' silence on post-retirement action was not a gap to be filled by inference, but a deliberate omission that stripped the Corporation of jurisdiction.
Residuary Clause is Not an Engine of Power: Regulation 110 was interpreted restrictively. It is a tool for procedural alignment, not for creating substantive jurisdiction to punish. Adopting major rules like pension forfeiture requires explicit, recorded decision-making.
Sanction is a Substantive Safeguard, Not a Formality: The Court differentiated between "approval" of service regulations and "sanction" for specific proceedings. The latter is a vital check against harassment, requiring active, case-by-case governmental scrutiny.
Rejection of "General Practice" Jurisprudence: The Corporation's defense of consistent past practice was invalidated. Jurisdiction must stem from a valid rule or its proper adoption, not from habitual unauthorized action.
The core holding establishes that post-retirement disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be assumed, implied, or derived from general practice; it must be explicitly conferred by law or through a duly adopted statutory instrument.
7. Final Outcome and Directions
The Appeal was allowed.
The Impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 25.01.2021 was set aside.
All departmental proceedings against the appellant were quashed.
The Corporation was directed to release all withheld retiral benefits (provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears, etc.) to the appellant within eight weeks.
Any amount already recovered from the appellant was to be refunded within the same period.
8. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Kadirkhan Pathan, the Supreme Court interpreted Regulation 110 of the 1992 Regulations as?
A. A provision that automatically makes all Maharashtra Government rules applicable to Corporation employees.
B. A substantive clause that explicitly grants power to hold post-retirement enquiries.
C. A residuary clause that allows regulation of matters, as considered appropriate by the Corporation, but requires a conscious decision to adopt external rules.
D. A clause that overrides the need for government sanction under the Pension Rules.
Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, for initiating a departmental enquiry after an employee's retirement under Rule 27(2)(b)(i) of the 1982 Pension Rules, what is required?
A. General approval of the service regulations by the state government.
B. A resolution from the Corporation's Board for recovery of losses.
C. Prior and specific sanction of the Government for each case, which is mandatory.
D. Merely establishing that a financial loss occurred during the employee's service.