ORDER
R.V. Raveendran, C.J.
1. The petitioner retired from service as Inspector General of Police on 31-3-2002. On 30-4-2003, H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal appointed him as an ‘Adviser’ for a period of one year from 11-5-2003 on contract basis on a monthly pay of Rs. 16,000/- plus vehicle allowance Rs. 4,000/-. On joining the said position, the petitioner sent a communication dated 1-5-2003 informing the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of M.P. that he has joined the said post of Adviser on 1-5-2003. In the annexure to the said letter he described his duties as “to impart advice to Education Trust for upgrading the general administration of technical standard of Engineering Colleges run by the trust”.
2. The said communication was sent apparently to meet the requirements of Rule 26 of All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’ for short), relevant portions of which read as under :–
“26. Acceptance of employment after retirement.– (1) A pensioner shall not accept any commercial employment before the expiry of two years from the date of his retirement, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. If a pensioner accepts a commercial employment without such sanction, it shall be competent for the Central Government to declare by an order in writing that he shall not be entitled to the whole or such part of the pension and for such period as may be specified in the order:
Provided that no such order shall be made without giving the pensioner concerned an opportunity of showing cause against such declaration …….
Explanations:– (i) ‘Commercial Employment’ means :
(ii) setting up practice, either independently or as a partner of a firm, as adviser or consultant in matter in respect of which a pensioner has–
(a) no professional qualifications and the matters in respect of which the practice is proposed to be set up or carried on are relatable to his official knowledge or experience, or
(b) professional qualifications, but the matters in respect of which such practice is to be set up are such as are likely to give his clients an unfair advantage by reason of his previous official position, or
(c) to undertake work involving liaison or contact with the offices or officers of the Government.”
3. When the appointment of petitioner came to the notice of Central Government, it issued an official memorandum dated 10-7-2003 calling upon him to explain the reason for not obtaining its prior permission under Rule 26, for taking such employment. The petitioner sent a reply on 1-9-2003 contending that he was not required to take prior permission from the Central Government, as the Trust which employed him was not a commercial organisation and, therefore, his employment was not a ‘commercial employment’. The Central Government was not satisfied with the said explanation. Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued a notice dated 27-11-2003 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why a 50% cut should not be imposed in the petitioner’s pension for a period of three years, for contravening Rule 26.
4. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in O.A. No. 897 of 2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. The Tribunal, by order dated 9-8-2004, disposed of the said application by directing the applicant to submit his representation/reply to the notice dated 27-11 -2003 within four weeks and a direction to respondents to take a decision thereon within three months therefrom. The said order of the Tribunal is challenged in this petition.
5. The petitioner contends that the notice should be quashed as he did not take up ‘commercial employment’ when he took up the assignment of an adviser of an educational trust, and therefore, there-was no obligation on his part to obtain prior permission from the Central Government as required by Rule 26.
6. The explanation to Rule 26 makes it clear that ‘commercial employment’ does not refer to the nature of activities carried on by the employer, but to the nature of duties to be discharged by the retired Government servant. Even if the employer is a non-profitable or non-commercial organisation, if the employment of the retired Government servant falls within the definition of commercial employment under Rule 26, the previous sanction of Central Government is mandatory. There is a salutary policy behind the Rule and it is intended to prevent, among others, the following :–
(a) A Government servant after retirement, undertaking liaison work by contracting officers/offices where he has some influence or familiarity, on account of his position while in service. (b) A Government servant while in service, showing favours and receiving the 'consideration' for such favours, by way of emoluments/consultation fee, by taking up employment after retirement, under the person so favoured. (c) A Government servant using his official knowledge and experience gained while in service, to give an unfair advantage to the employer, who employees him after retirement.
7. We, can not therefore agree with the contention that petitioner’s employment is not a ‘commercial employment’, merely because he has been employed by an educational trust running Engineering Colleges. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to quash the notice and directing the petitioner to file his objections/representation. It is open to petitioner to file objections to the show-cause notice and demonstrate that his employment does not fall under the definition of ‘commercial employment’ as defined under Rule 26. Alternatively, it is open to him to accept the violation and put forth a contention that as he was under a bona fide impression that he was not taking up any commercial employment, he did not inform the Central Government, and that he showed his bona fides by informing the State Government, and that at all events as the employment was only for one year, the penalty proposed is excessive. Be that as it may.
8. We find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.