Delhi High Court sets aside pension cut imposed on govt servant for showing live-in partner as wife

The Delhi High Court recently set aside a cut in pension imposed on a government servant for seeking to declare his live-in partner as his wife in official records without obtaining a divorce [Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India Through Secretary (R) And Anr]..A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upholding the penalty, stating that it erred in characterising the petitioner’s actions as gross misconduct.“..the learned Tribunal erred in characterizing the petitioner’s actions as ‘grave/gross misconduct’, as the petitioner never concealed his relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi. In view of this, the Disciplinary Authority’s assertion that the petitioner lacks personal integrity is also misconceived. Neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the learned Tribunal was correct in upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Treating respondent’s efforts to include Ms. Manihal Devi and her children in the family details proforma as the sole basis for establishing grave misconduct is erroneous,” the Court stated. .The petitioner Birendra Singh Kunwar got married to Suman Kunwar on 1981. He submitted that the wife deserted him in 1983 and refused to grant him divorce. In 1990, she filed a complaint against him for neglecting his family and living with another woman. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him; the same culminated in reduction of his salary for four years. In 2008, he sought for inclusion of his live-in partner Manihal Devi as his wife and sought to obtain her diplomatic passport. In 2011, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him for cheating and misleading the department by mentioning his live-in companion Manihal Devi as his wife. Thereby, he was charged with “serious misconduct” by exhibiting a “total lack of absolute integrity” unbecoming of a government servant under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. Upon advice given by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), fifty per cent of Kunwar's monthly pension was withheld as penalty. Kunwar challenged this penalty before the CAT. .The Court stated that there was no concealment regarding his relationship with Manihal Devi and so he had not committed any grave misconduct or negligence. “We are of the opinion that the petitioner maintained transparency, at all times, with the respondents, regarding his relationship with Ms. Manihal Devi, and had no mala fide intention to obtain diplomatic passports through misrepresentation or by defrauding the Department,” the Court stated.With these observations, the Court stated that the petitioner is entitled to his monthly pension and gratuity amount, with effect from August 1, 2012, along with interest on the delayed payments at the rate of six percent per annum..The petitioner appeared in person. Advocate Arti Bansal appeared for the Union of India..[Read judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.