Important Point
Rules 26 and 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules do not lay down any period of limitation for prosecution or could not supersede the period of limitation prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Rule 27 is only meant for the purpose of granting, withholding or withdrawing the pension and hence its operation would be in the limited field of granting or withholding pension to the government employees.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 4 and 468 r/w Rule 27(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982—Limitation for prosecution—Prosecution of retired Government servant—Offence under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act—Plea that prosecution cannot be entertained after lapse of four year in terms of Rule 27(3)—Not tenable provisions of Pension Rules cannot override or supersede period of limitation prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure Code—Operation of Rule 27 would be in limited field of granting, withholding or withdrawing pension to Government employees.
       Held : Rule 27(1) provides right of Government to withhold or withdraw a pension and in that context the said rule is to be interpreted. Under the said rule, the Government may inter alia order withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part thereof, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. It also empowers the government to order the recovery from such pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the government if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. In the context of the second part of sub rule (1), sub rule (3) is to be read and interpreted. If something is to be recovered from the pension payable to the employee then the judicial proceeding or departmental inquiry is required to be started within the period prescribed under the sub-rule (2) or (3) but that would not debar the prosecuting agency from launching the prosecution for the offence of grave misconduct. This rule is to be read with the previous Rule 26 which provides that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and Government may withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. But the Pension Rules 26 and 27 do not lay down any period of limitation for prosecution or could not supersede the period of limitation prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Rule 27 is only meant for the purpose of granting, withholding or withdrawing the pension and hence its operation would be in the limited field of granting or withholding pension to the government employees. (Para 9)
       (ii) Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982—Rule 27(3) r/w Sections 4, 468 and 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 —Prosecution of retired Govt. Servant—Period of limitation—Offence IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act—Prosecution launched within four years of sanction under section for prosecution—Offence punishable with more than four years—Plea of accused that prosecution launched after four years of retirement not permissible in view of bar under Rule 27—Not tenable—No limitation under Cr.P.C for prosecution of offence in question—Even otherwise Section 470 Cr.P.C excludes time required for institution of prosecution of offence—Further provisions of Cr.P.C overrides provisions of Pension Rules—Launching of prosecution not barred by limitation. (Paras 5 & 6)
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgment

Shah, J.—Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 1 was serving as Deputy Engineer, P.W.D. in the State of Maharashtra. On 13th October, 1990, a charge sheet No. 247 of 1990 was filed against the respondent and several other officers of the Department before the Special Court, Satara, and the case was numbered as Special Case No. 5 of 1990. Respondent retired on 31st December 1987 as Deputy Engineer. Necessary sanction for prosecuting the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 109 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(c)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was obtained. The judge of the special court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the respondent.

3. Thereafter the respondent filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 484 of 1991 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of four years from the date of the commission of the offence and therefore, it was barred by Rule 27(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Pension Rules”). The High Court accepted the plea and held that Rule 27 of the Pension Rules was directly applicable and it is mandatory that prosecution should be launched within four years from the date of commission of offence. Hence, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 5 of 1990 against the respondent. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge is being challenged now.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Code”), the bar contained in Pension Rule 27 can not be invoked and it cannot have any overriding effect to the provisions of the Code. Even on merits, sanction to prosecute was received on 25th August, 1989 and therefore also, the submission of the charge-sheet before the Court on 30th October, 1990 was within time. It was alternatively contended that Rule 27 of the Pension Rules would not apply to prosecution in a criminal court.

5. In our view, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant requires consideration. Section 4 of the Code specifically provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained therein. Admittedly, against respondent No. 1 charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and he is to be tried as per the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Chapter XXXVI containing Sections 467 to 473 deals with limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 468 provides for a bar for taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) thus:-

“468(2)—The period of limitation shall be—

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.”

6. Period of three years is provided for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years then there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. Further sub-section (3) of Section 470 excludes the time required for obtaining sanction where the previous sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence. Hence, it is apparent that as the offences for which respondent No. 1 is charge-sheeted are punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis