In a landmark case that has come to light through a Right to Information (RTI) application, the Maharashtra government has imposed a financial penalty on a retired assistant commissioner of police (ACP), Maruti Dattatraya Pawar, sending a clear message that retirement does not grant immunity from disciplinary action. This case, spearheaded by well-known railway and right to information (RTI) activist Samir Zaveri, highlights the power of citizen-led oversight in holding public servants accountable for misconduct.
The disciplinary action stems from a chain-snatching incident that occurred in Mumbai in 2016. According to Mr Zaveri, a thief was caught by the public and handed over to the local railway police at a station. However, instead of taking official action, an officer allegedly released the thief without registering a first information report (FIR) or conducting a proper investigation. To make matters worse, the victim, a person from a poor background, was reportedly mistreated and asked to pay a bribe of Rs5,000 to ‘amicably close’ the case.
Upon learning of the alleged police misconduct and the victim's plight, Mr Zaveri, known for his relentless advocacy for railway passengers and his use of the RTI Act, filed a formal complaint with the commissioner of government railway police (GRP), Mumbai. His efforts initiated an official inquiry into the matter, which was conducted under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The investigation specifically targeted then-ACP Maruti Dattatraya Pawar, who was serving in the Kalyan division of the GRP at the time.
The inquiry found the charges against Mr Pawar to be proven. He was held responsible for submitting an incomplete and vague report to his superiors and for deliberately supporting delinquent police personnel. When a re-inquiry was ordered by the railway police commissioner, ACP Pawar failed to conduct it. His actions were deemed a serious violation of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.
The investigation was a prolonged process, spanning several years. By the time the internal inquiry concluded, ACP Pawar had already retired from service. While the typical punishment for such grave misconduct would have been a suspension, his retirement presented a unique challenge. However, as legal precedents and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules allow for the continuation of departmental proceedings even after an officer has retired, the government moved to penalise him financially.
The government sought a recommendation from the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC), which concurred with the proposed penalty. On 15 February 2021, a formal order was issued by the state home department imposing a 10% deduction from ACP Pawar's monthly pension for one year. This penalty serves as a powerful deterrent, showing that an officer's service record is subject to review and punishment, regardless of their retirement status.
The final confirmation of the punishment came to light through a recent RTI application filed by Samir Zaveri on 2 August 2025. This was a follow-up to his original complaint, aimed at ensuring that the prescribed punishment had been implemented. The home department's response to his RTI application, a letter dated 15 September 2025, provided a copy of the final order, thereby confirming that the pension cut was indeed being carried out.
This case sets a significant example for governance and public accountability in the state. It reaffirms the legal framework's ability to hold public servants responsible for their actions throughout their careers and beyond. For activists such as Samir Zaveri, it is a validation of the tools of transparency and a testament to the fact that persistence can lead to justice. The case also serves as a warning to those in public service that their actions carry long-term consequences, even in retirement.
Speaking to Moneylife about the case, Mr Zaveri says, “This is a truly landmark moment. It sends a strong message that public servants, even after they retire, cannot escape accountability for their actions. The government's decision to penalise ACP Pawar by cutting his pension proves that misconduct has consequences regardless of when it is discovered. It is a victory for transparency and a crucial precedent for future cases involving retired officials.”
