In a significant judgment that clarifies the boundaries of "gross misconduct" and personal integrity for government employees, the Delhi High Court has set aside a departmental order that withheld 50% of a retired government servant's pension. The court ruled that seeking to include a long-term live-in partner in official records—even while legally married to another—does not automatically amount to "grave misconduct" or "cheating," especially when the employee has maintained transparency about the relationship.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, observed that the petitioner had not concealed his relationship from the department at any stage. Consequently, the court held that the Disciplinary Authority’s finding that the employee lacked "personal integrity" was misconceived.
The case of Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India revolves around the life and career of a government official whose personal choices led to a decade-long legal battle over his retirement benefits.
The petitioner, Birendra Singh Kunwar, married Suman Kunwar in 1981. According to the petitioner, his wife deserted him just two years later, in 1983, and refused to grant him a formal divorce. By 1990, the situation escalated when Suman filed a complaint against him for neglecting his family and living with another woman, Ms. Manihal Devi.
Based on this complaint, the department initiated its first disciplinary proceeding, which resulted in a penalty of salary reduction for four years. Despite this, Kunwar continued his life with Manihal Devi, a relationship that was essentially known to the department and the public due to the prior proceedings.
The trouble started again in 2008 when Kunwar attempted to include Ms. Manihal Devi as his "wife" in the family details proforma and sought a diplomatic passport for her. The department viewed this as an attempt to mislead them, as Kunwar was still legally married to Suman Kunwar.
In 2011, a fresh disciplinary inquiry was launched. The charges were serious:
- Misleading the Department: Mentioning a live-in companion as a wife in official records.
- Serious Misconduct: Exhibiting a "total lack of absolute integrity" as per the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Conduct) Rules.
Following the inquiry and advice from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), the government imposed a harsh penalty: 50% of Kunwar’s monthly pension and his entire gratuity were withheld permanently.
Kunwar initially challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). However, the CAT upheld the penalty, agreeing with the department that the act of naming a live-in partner as a spouse in official documents constituted gross misconduct.
When the matter reached the Delhi High Court, the Bench took a different view of the facts. The Court looked beyond the technicality of the word "wife" and focused on the intent and transparency of the petitioner.
The Court noted that the department was fully aware of the petitioner's domestic situation since 1990. Therefore, his attempt to include Manihal Devi’s name in 2008 was not a "clandestine" or "secret" act meant to defraud the government.
"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," the Bench observed.
The Court further clarified that for an act to be termed "grave misconduct" under the CCS (Pension) Rules, there must be an element of moral turpitude, fraud, or a significant breach of duty that causes loss to the state. In this case, there was no pecuniary (financial) loss to the government.
- Transparency is Vital: The Court emphasized that because the petitioner maintained transparency at all times regarding his relationship, there was no mala fide (bad faith) intention to obtain benefits through misrepresentation.
- Context Matters: The Court observed that the petitioner’s efforts were directed toward providing security for the woman he had lived with for decades and their children. Labeling this as "lack of integrity" was deemed "misconceived."
- Proportionality of Penalty: Withholding half of a person's life-long savings (pension) for a clerical entry regarding a well-known domestic relationship was found to be excessive and legally unsustainable.
Setting aside the CAT's order and the Disciplinary Authority's penalty, the Delhi High Court declared that Birendra Singh Kunwar is entitled to his full monthly pension and gratuity.
The Court directed the Government to:
- Release the withheld pension and gratuity amounts effective from August 1, 2012.
- Pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on all delayed payments.
- Consider the petitioner’s plea to include the names of Ms. Manihal Devi and her children in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) for the purposes of family pension and CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) facilities.
The respondents have been given eight weeks to comply with these directions.
This judgment serves as a reminder that disciplinary rules in government service must be applied with a sense of reality and compassion. While bigamy or misleading a department remains a serious issue, the court highlighted that when a relationship is open and the employee's conduct is transparent, the heavy hand of "gross misconduct" should not be used to strip a retired citizen of their basic livelihood.
Case Title: Birendra Singh Kunwar v. Union of India Through Secretary (R) And Anr
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain
Date of Order: January 7, 2026 (Pronounced)