{"id":59439,"date":"1990-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990"},"modified":"2019-02-17T01:29:28","modified_gmt":"2019-02-16T19:59:28","slug":"d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","title":{"rendered":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1923, \t\t  1990 SCR  (3) 697<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nD.V. KAPOOR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/08\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR 1923\t\t  1990 SCR  (3) 697\n 1990 SCC  (4) 314\t  JT 1990 (3)\t403\n 1990 SCALE  (2)175\n\n\nACT:\n    Central  Civil  Services (Pension) Rules,\t1972:  Rules\n8(5)--Explanation (b) and 9  Pension and gratuity--Withhold-\ning   of--For\tabsence\t  from\t duty--Whether\t valid\t and\nlegal--`Grave  misconduct'--Interpretation  of--Disciplinary\nproceedings  initiated while in service-Continued  and\tcon-\ncluded on voluntary retirement--Whether valid and legal.\n    Central  Civil  Services  (Conduct)\t Rules\t1964:  Rules\n3(1)(i)\t and 3(1) (iii)--Absence from  duty--Whether  `grave\nmisconduct'--Withholding of pension----Whether permissible.\n    Words  &amp; Phrases: `Grave misconduct'--Meaning  of---Rule\n8(5),  Explanation  (b)\t Central  Civil\t Services  (Pension)\nRules, 1972.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Disciplinary  proceedings  were  initiated\tagainst\t the\nappellant  for\twilful contravention of\t Rules\t3(1)(i)\t and\n3(1)(iii)  of  the Central Civil Services  (Conduct)  Rules.\n1964  by absenting himself from duty  without  authorisation\nand in not reporting to duty at New Delhi office on transfer\nfrom  London office. Pending proceedings, he was allowed  to\nretire voluntarily but was put on notice that the  discipli-\nnary  proceedings  would be continued under rule  9  of\t the\nCivil  Services Pension Rules, 1972. Thereafter, on  comple-\ntion of the enquiry, the President of India in\tconsultation\nwith  the Union Public Service Commission, decided to  with-\nhold the entire gratuity and pension otherwise admissible to\nthe  appellant, on permanent basis, as a measure of  punish-\nment. The appellant's writ petition challenging the legality\nof the order was dismissed by the High Court, in limine.\n    In\tthe appeal by special leave, before this  Court,  on\nbehalf\tof  the appellant it was contended  that  since\t the\nappellant  had been allowed to retire voluntarily, the\tpro-\nceedings  stood abated, and the authorities were  devoid  of\njurisdiction  to impose the penalty of withholding  gratuity\nand pension as a measure of punishment, and that for  award-\ning the said punishment the appellant must be found to\thave\ncommitted grave misconduct or negligence within the  meaning\nof Rule 8(5), Explanation (b).\n698\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1. Rule 9(2) of the Central Civil Services  (Pen-\nsion) Rules, 1972 provided that the departmental proceedings\nif  instituted while the Government servant was in  service,\nwhether\t before his retirement or during his  re-employment,\nshould,\t after the final retirement of the Government  serv-\nant,  be deemed to be proceedings under the rule and  should\nbe  continued and concluded by the authority by\t which\tthey\nwere  commenced\t in  the same manner as\t if  the  Government\nservant had continued in service. [701A-B]\n    In\tthe instant case, merely because the  appellant\t was\nallowed\t to retire, the Government is not lacking  jurisdic-\ntion or power to continue the proceedings already  initiated\nto  the logical conclusion thereto. The only  inhibition  is\nthat where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an\nauthority  subordinate\tto  the\t President,  that  authority\nshould submit a report recording its findings to the  Presi-\ndent. That has been done, and the President passed the order\nunder challenge. Therefore, the proceedings are valid in law\nand are not abated consequent to voluntary retirement of the\nappellant and the order was passed by the competent authori-\nty, i.e. the President of India. [701B-D]\n    2.1 Public employee holding a civil post or office under\nthe State has a legitimate right to earn his pension at\t the\nevening of his life after retirement be it on superannuation\nor  voluntary retirement. It is not a bounty of\t the  State.\nEqually\t too of gratuity, a statutory right, earned by\thim-\nArticle\t 41 of the Constitution accords right to  assistance\nat the old age of sickness or disablement. Therefore, when a\nGovernment employee is sought to be deprived of his pension-\nary right which he had earned while rendering services under\nthe  State,  such a deprivation must be in  accordance\twith\nlaw. [701F-G; 702D]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1416283\/\">D.S.  Nakara  &amp; Ors. v. Union of India,<\/a> [1983]\t2  SCR\t165,\nrelied on.\n    2.2\t Under\tRule  9(1) of  the  Central  Civil  Services\n(Pension) Rules, 1972, the President has reserved to himself\nthe  right to withhold pension in whole or in part,  whether\npermanently  or\t for a specified period, or he\tcan  recover\nfrom  pension  of the whole or part of\tany  pecuniary\tloss\ncaused by the Government employee to the Government  subject\nto the minimum. However, the exercise of the power is hedged\nwith a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded\neither in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings\tthat\nthe pensioner com-\n699\nmitted\tgrave misconduct or negligence in the  discharge  of\nhis duty while in office, as defined in Rule 8(5),  Explana-\ntion  (b), which is an inclusive definition, i.e. the  scope\nis wide of mark, dependent on the facts or circumstances  in\na  given case. In the absence of such a finding, the  Presi-\ndent is without authority of law to impose penalty or  with-\nholding\t pension as a measure of punishment either in  whole\nor in part, permanently or for a specified period.  [702G-H;\n704B; 703E-F]\n    In\tthe  instant case, the Inquiry\tOfficer\t found\tthat\nthough the appellant derelicted his duty to report to  duty,\nat New Delhi on transfer from London, it was not wilful\t for\nthe reason that he could not move due to his wife's  illness\nand  he recommended to sympathetically consider the case  of\nthe  appellant and the President accepted this finding,\t but\ndecided\t to withhold gratuity and payment of pension  perma-\nnently,\t in consultation with the Union Public Service\tCom-\nmission. [703G-H; 704A]\n    The\t employee's right to pension is a  statutory  right.\nThe measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to\nor commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct  or\nirregularity  as it offends the right to assistance  at\t the\nevening\t of  his  life as assured under Article\t 41  of\t the\nConstitution.  The  right to gratuity is  also\ta  statutory\nright.\tThe appellant was not charged with nor was given  an\nopportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure\nof punishment. There is no provision of law under which\t the\nPresident  is empowered to withhold gratuity as well,  after\nhis  retirement as a measure of punishment.  Therefore,\t the\norder  to withhold the gratuity as a measure of\t penalty  is\nillegal and devoid of jurisdiction. Since there is no  find-\ning  that appellant did commit grave misconduct\t as  charged\nfor,  the  exercise of the power is clearly illegal  and  in\nexcess\tof  jurisdiction as the condition  precedent,  grave\nmisconduct, was not proved. [704D-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5025  of<br \/>\n1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.1985 of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    N.S Hegde, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma and<br \/>\nMrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">700<\/span><br \/>\n    K.\tRAMASWAMY, J. 1. This appeal by special leave  under<br \/>\nArt. 136 of the Constitution arises against the decision  of<br \/>\nthe  Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 686 of 1985 dated  March<br \/>\n25, 1985. The appellant was working as an Assistant Grade IV<br \/>\nof  the\t Indian Foreign Service, Branch &#8216;B&#8217; in\tIndian\tHigh<br \/>\nCommission at London. On November 8, 1978 he was transferred<br \/>\nto  the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, but he\t did<br \/>\nnot  join  duty\t as commanded, resulting  in  initiation  of<br \/>\ndisciplinary  proceedings  against him on August  23,  1979.<br \/>\nPending the proceedings, on February 26, 1980 the  appellant<br \/>\nsought voluntary retirement from service and by\t proceedings<br \/>\ndated October 24, 1980 he was allowed to retire but was\t put<br \/>\non  notice  that  the  disciplinary  proceedings   initiated<br \/>\nagainst\t him would be continued under rule 9 of Civil  Serv-<br \/>\nices Pension Rules, 1972 for short &#8216;Rules&#8217;. His main defence<br \/>\nin  the explanation was that his wife was ailing  at  London<br \/>\nand,  therefore,  he sought for leave for six  days  in\t the<br \/>\nfirst instance and 30 days later, which was granted, but  as<br \/>\nshe did not recover from the ailment, he could not undertake<br \/>\ntravel. So he sought for more leave, but when it was reject-<br \/>\ned,  he\t was constrained to opt\t for  voluntary\t retirement.<br \/>\nAfter  conducting the enquiry the Inquiry Officer  submitted<br \/>\nhis  report dated May 19, 1981. The gravemen of\t charges  as<br \/>\nstated earlier are that the appellant absented himself\tfrom<br \/>\nduty  from December 15, 1978 without any  authorisation\t and<br \/>\ndespite his being asked to join duty he remained absent from<br \/>\nduty  which  is wilful contravention of\t Rule  3(i)(ii)\t and<br \/>\n3(i)(iii)  of  the  Civil Services Conduct  Rule  1964.\t The<br \/>\nInquiry\t Officer found that &#8220;it is however difficult to\t say<br \/>\nwhether\t his  absenting\t himself  from\tduty  was   entirely<br \/>\nwilful&#8221;.  In  the concluding portion he says that  both\t the<br \/>\narticles of charges have been established, the circumstances<br \/>\nin  which the appellant violated the rules require a  sympa-<br \/>\nthetic consideration while deciding the case under Rule 9 of<br \/>\nthe  Rules. The President, on consideration of\tthe  report,<br \/>\nagreed\twith  the  findings of the Inquiry  Officer  and  in<br \/>\nconsultation with the Union Public Service Commission decid-<br \/>\ned that the entire gratuity and pension otherwise admissible<br \/>\nto the appellant was withheld on permanent basis as a  meas-<br \/>\nure  of\t punishment through the proceedings  dated  November<br \/>\n24,. 1981. When the appellant challenged the legality there-<br \/>\nof, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine  on<br \/>\nthe ground that it would not interfere in its  discretionary<br \/>\njurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>    2. The contention of Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant  is  that  the appellant having  been\t allowed  to<br \/>\nretire\tvoluntarily the authorities are devoid of  jurisdic-<br \/>\ntion  to  impose  the penalty of  withholding  gratuity\t and<br \/>\npension as a measure of punishment and the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">701<\/span><br \/>\nproceedings  stand abated. We find no substance in the\tcon-<br \/>\ntention. Rule 9(2) of the Rules provided that the departmen-<br \/>\ntal  proceedings if instituted while the Government  servant<br \/>\nwas  in service whether before his retirement or during\t his<br \/>\nre-employment,\tshall,\tafter the final\t retirement  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  servant, be deemed to be proceedings under\tthis<br \/>\nrule  and shall be continued and concluded by the  authority<br \/>\nby  which they were commenced in the same manner as  if\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  servant  had continued  in\tservice.  Therefore,<br \/>\nmerely\tbecause\t the appellant was allowed  to\tretire,\t the<br \/>\nGovernment is not lacking jurisdiction or power to  continue<br \/>\nthe proceedings already initiated to the logical  conclusion<br \/>\nthereto.  The disciplinary proceedings initiated  under\t the<br \/>\nConduct\t Rules\tmust be deemed to be proceedings  under\t the<br \/>\nrules  and shall be continued and concluded by the  authori-<br \/>\nties  by  which the proceedings have been commenced  in\t the<br \/>\nsame  manner as if the Government servant had  continued  in<br \/>\nservice.  The only inhibition thereafter is as\tprovided  in<br \/>\nthe  proviso  namely &#8220;provided that where  the\tdepartmental<br \/>\nproceedings  are instituted by an authority  subordinate  to<br \/>\nthe President, that authority shall submit a report  record-<br \/>\ning  its findings to the President&#8221;. That has been  done  in<br \/>\nthis  case  and\t the President passed  the  impugned  order.<br \/>\nAccordingly  we hold that the proceedings are valid  in\t law<br \/>\nand  they are not abated consequent to voluntary  retirement<br \/>\nof  the appellant and the order was passed by the  competent<br \/>\nauthority, i.e.the President of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>    3.\tHis  further contention that the appellant  must  be<br \/>\nfound  to have committed &#8220;grave misconduct&#8221; or\t&#8220;negligence&#8221;<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of Rule 8(5)(2) of the Rules which  alone<br \/>\ngives power and jurisdiction to the authority to withhold by<br \/>\nway  of\t disciplinary measure the gratuity  and\t payment  of<br \/>\npension:  Public  employee holding a civil  post  or  office<br \/>\nunder  the State has a legitimate right to earn his  pension<br \/>\nat the evening of his life after retirement, be it on super-<br \/>\nannuation or voluntary retirement. It is not a bounty of the<br \/>\nState. Equally too of gratuity, a statutory right. earned by<br \/>\nhim.  Article 141 of the Constitution accords right  to\t as-<br \/>\nsistance at the old aged or sickness or disablement. <a href=\"\/doc\/1416283\/\">In D.S.<br \/>\nNakara\t&amp; Ors. v. Union of India,<\/a> [1983] 2 SCR 165 the\tCon-<br \/>\nstitution Bench of this Court held that pension is not\tonly<br \/>\ncompensation  for  loyal service rendered in the  past,\t but<br \/>\nalso  by  the broader significance in that it  is  a  social<br \/>\nwelfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice by providing<br \/>\neconomic  security  in the fall of life\t when  physical\t and<br \/>\nmental\tprowess\t is ebbing corresponding to  ageing  process<br \/>\nand, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One<br \/>\nsuch  saving in kind is when one had given his best  in\t the<br \/>\nhey-day\t of  life to his employer, in  days  of\t invalidity,<br \/>\neconomic security by way of periodical<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">702<\/span><br \/>\npayment is assured. Therefore, it is a sort of stipend\tmade<br \/>\nin consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or<br \/>\nemoluments  to\tone retired from service.  Thus\t pension  is<br \/>\nearned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore<br \/>\ncan be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation for<br \/>\nservice rendered. In one sentence one can say that the\tmost<br \/>\npractical  raison  d&#8217;etre for pension is  the  inability  to<br \/>\nprovide for one self due to old age. One may live and  avoid<br \/>\nunemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing<br \/>\nto fall back upon.\n<\/p>\n<p>    4. At page 190-D it is stated that pension as a  retire-<br \/>\nment  benefit is in consonance with and furtherance  of\t the<br \/>\ngoals  of the Constitution. The goals for which\t pension  is<br \/>\npaid  themselves  give a fillip and push to  the  policy  of<br \/>\nsetting up a welfare State because by pension the  socialist<br \/>\ngoal  of security from gradle to grave is assured  at  least<br \/>\nwhen it is mostly needed and least available, namely in\t the<br \/>\nfall  of  life.\t Therefore, when a  Government\temployee  is<br \/>\nsought\tto be deprived of his pensionary right when the\t had<br \/>\nearned\twhile  rendering services under the  State,  such  a<br \/>\ndeprivation must be in accordance with law. Rule 9(1) of the<br \/>\nrules provides thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The President reserves to himself the right of\t withholding<br \/>\nor withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanent-<br \/>\nly or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery\tfrom<br \/>\na pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss  caused<br \/>\nto  the\t Government,  if, in any  departmental\tof  judicial<br \/>\nproceedings, the pensioner is found guilty or grave  miscon-<br \/>\nduct or negligence during the period of his service  includ-<br \/>\ning service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.<br \/>\nProvided  that the Union Public Service Commission shall  be<br \/>\nconsulted before any final orders are passed.<br \/>\nProvided further that where a part of pension is withheld or<br \/>\nwithdrawn,  the amount of such pension shall not be  reduced<br \/>\nbelow the amount of rupees sixty per mensum.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    Therefore,\tit is clear that the President\treserves  to<br \/>\nhimself the right to withhold or withdraw the whole  pension<br \/>\nor  a  part  thereof whether permanently  or  for  specified<br \/>\nperiod.\t The President also is empowered to  order  recovery<br \/>\nfrom a pensioner of the whole or part of any pecuniary\tloss<br \/>\ncaused\tto  the\t Government, if in any,\t proceeding  in\t the<br \/>\ndepartmental enquiry or judicial proceedings, the  pensioner<br \/>\nis<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">703<\/span><br \/>\nfound  guilty of grave misconduct or negligence\t during\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof his service including service rendered  upon\t re-<br \/>\nemployment after retirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule 8(5), explanation (b) defines &#8216;grave misconduct&#8217; thus&#8217;<br \/>\n&#8220;The  expression &#8216;grave misconduct&#8217; includes the  communica-<br \/>\ntion  or disclosure of any secret official code or  password<br \/>\nor  any\t sketch,  plan, model, article,\t note,\tdocument  or<br \/>\ninformation, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the  Offi-<br \/>\ncial  Secrets,\tAct, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which  was  obtained<br \/>\nwhile holding office under the Government) so as to prejudi-<br \/>\ncially\taffect\tthe interest of the general  public  of\t the<br \/>\nsecurity of the State.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    In one of the decisions of the Government as compiled by<br \/>\nSwamy&#8217;s\t Pension  Compilation, 1987 Edition,  it  is  stated<br \/>\nthat:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Pensions  are\tnot in the nature of reward but there  is  a<br \/>\n2binding obligation on Government which can be claimed as  a<br \/>\nfight.\tTheir forfeiture is only on resignation, removal  or<br \/>\ndismissal  from service. After a pension is  sanctioned\t its<br \/>\ncontinuance depends on future good conduct, but it cannot be<br \/>\nstopped or reduced for other reasons.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5. It is seen that the President has reserved to himself the<br \/>\nright withhold pension in whole or in part therefore whether<br \/>\npermanently or for a specified period or he can recover from<br \/>\npension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by<br \/>\nthe  Government\t employee to the Government subject  to\t the<br \/>\nminimum. The condition precedent is that in any departmental<br \/>\nenquiry or the judicial proceedings, the pensioner is  found<br \/>\nguilty\tof grave misconduct or negligence during the  period<br \/>\nof  his\t service of the original or  on\t re-employment.\t The<br \/>\ncondition precedent thereto is that there should be a  find-<br \/>\ning  that  the deliquent is guilty of  grave  misconduct  or<br \/>\nnegligence  in\tthe discharge of public duty in\t office,  as<br \/>\ndefined in Rule 8(5), explanation (b) which is an  inclusive<br \/>\ndefinition, i.e. the scope is wide of mark dependent on\t the<br \/>\nfacts or circumstances in a given case. Myriad situation may<br \/>\narise depending on the ingenuinity with which misconduct  or<br \/>\nirregularity  was committed. It is not necessary to  further<br \/>\nprobe into the scope and meaning of the words &#8216;grave miscon-<br \/>\nduct  or negligence&#8217; and under what circumstances the  find-<br \/>\nings  in  this regard are held proved. It  is  suffice\tthat<br \/>\ncharges\t in this case are that the appellant was  guilty  of<br \/>\nwilful misconduct in not reporting to duty after his  trans-<br \/>\nfer  from Indian High Commission at London to the Office  of<br \/>\nExternal  Affairs Ministry, Government of India, New  Delhi.<br \/>\nThe  Inquiry Officer found that though the appellants  dere-<br \/>\nlicted his duty to report to duty, it is not<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">704<\/span><br \/>\nwilful\tfor  the reason that he could not move\tdue  to\t his<br \/>\nwife&#8217;s illness and he recommended to sympathetically consid-<br \/>\ner the case of the appellant and the President accepted this<br \/>\nfinding,  but  decided to withhold gratuity and\t payment  of<br \/>\npension\t in consultation with the Union Public Service\tCom-<br \/>\nmission.\n<\/p>\n<p>    6. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is<br \/>\nhedged\twith a condition precedent that a finding should  be<br \/>\nrecorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceed-<br \/>\nings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negli-<br \/>\ngence in the discharge of his duty while in office,  subject<br \/>\nof  the charge. In the absence of such a finding the  Presi-<br \/>\ndent is without authority of law to impose penalty of  with-<br \/>\nholding\t pension as a measure of punishment either in  whole<br \/>\nor  in\tpart permanently or for a specified  period,  or  to<br \/>\norder  recovery\t of the pecuniary loss in whole or  in\tpart<br \/>\nfrom  the  pension of the employee, subject  to\t minimum  of<br \/>\nRs.60.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Rule 9 of the rules empowers the President only to  with-<br \/>\nhold  or  withdraw pension permanently or  for\ta  specified<br \/>\nperiod in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary<br \/>\nloss  caused  to the State in whole or in  part\t subject  to<br \/>\nminimum.  The  employee&#8217;s right to pension  is\ta  statutory<br \/>\nfight. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correl-<br \/>\native  to  or  commensurate with the gravity  of  the  grave<br \/>\nmisconduct  or irregularity as it offends the right  to\t as-<br \/>\nsistance at the evening of his life as assured under Art. 41<br \/>\nof the Constitution. The impugned &#8216;order discloses that\t the<br \/>\nPresident withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratui-<br \/>\nty  in addition to pension. The fight to gratuity is also  a<br \/>\nstatutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor\t was<br \/>\ngiven an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld  as<br \/>\na  measure  of\tpunishment. No provision  of  law  has\tbeen<br \/>\nbrought\t to our notice under which, the President is  empow-<br \/>\nered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a<br \/>\nmeasure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold\t the<br \/>\ngratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is<br \/>\ndevoid of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>    8.\tIn view of the above facts and law that there is  no<br \/>\nfinding\t that  appellant  did  commit  grave  misconduct  as<br \/>\ncharged\t for, the exercise of the power is  clearly  illegal<br \/>\nand  in excess of jurisdiction as the  condition  precedent,<br \/>\ngrave  misconduct was not proved. Accordingly the appeal  is<br \/>\nallowed\t and the impugned order dated November 24,  1981  is<br \/>\nquashed\t but  in the circumstances parties are\tdirected  to<br \/>\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">705<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 1923, 1990 SCR (3) 697 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: D.V. KAPOOR Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/08\/1990 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SHARMA, L.M. (J) CITATION: 1990 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\"},\"wordCount\":2276,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\",\"name\":\"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990","datePublished":"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990"},"wordCount":2276,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990","name":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-16T19:59:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-v-kapoor-vs-union-of-india-and-ors-on-7-august-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.V. Kapoor vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 August, 1990"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}