Back
2012 Supreme(Pat) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J
Bajrang Deo Narayan Sinha S/o Late Bishundeo Narayan Sinha & Ors - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. of Bihar & Ors - Respondents
CWJC No.13323, 13795 of 2009 & 4068 of 2010
Decided on : 05-04-2012
For the Petitioners: M/s Ambar Nath Banerjee, Mr. Sunil Prasad; Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Madhukar Narayan Sinha, M/s Sunil Kr. Tiwary & Mr. Rajesh Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Bose, Ms. Sanghmitra Ghosh, Ms. Ratna Das; M/s Mani Kant Mishra, Mr. J.P. Karn, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Mr. Kumar Brajendra Nath, Mr. Subodh Chandra Jha, Mr. Sanjay Kumar; Mrs. Namrata Mishra, M/s J.P. Karn, Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad.
A convicted public servant should be kept under the disability of conviction until the disposal of the appeal or revision, and the disability arising from conviction would also include the right to receive pension/gratuity, particularly when receipt thereof is not an absolute right under the relevant Rules.
Headnote:
PENSION - Criminal Conviction and Withholding of Pension - Bihar Pension Rules 43(a) and (b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act - The court discussed the application of Rule 43(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which enable the State to withhold pension or gratuity if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Sareen v. CBI Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584, which established that a convicted public servant should be kept under the disability of conviction, even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended, until the disposal of the appeal or revision. The court emphasized that the disability arising from conviction would also include the right to receive pension or gratuity, particularly when receipt thereof is not an absolute right under the relevant Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were public servants, were convicted of corruption charges and sought direction to receive pension/gratuity, which was withheld permanently by the State based on the convictions. The court analyzed the application of Bihar Pension Rules 43(a) and (b) and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Sareen v. CBI Chandigarh on the withholding of pension/gratuity due to criminal convictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State was justified in withholding the pension/gratuity of the petitioners based on their convictions for corruption charges. It emphasized that the disability arising from conviction would also include the right to receive pension/gratuity, particularly when receipt thereof is not an absolute right under the relevant Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State was justified in permanently withholding the pension/gratuity of the petitioners based on their convictions for corruption charges and the pendency of their appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules 43(a) and (b) and the legal principle established in K.C. Sareen v. CBI Chandigarh, emphasizing that a convicted public servant should be kept under the disability of conviction until the disposal of the appeal or revision. It clarified that the disability arising from conviction would also include the right to receive pension/gratuity, particularly when receipt thereof is not an absolute right under the relevant Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications but without costs, stating that the decision/action of the Government to withhold pension/gratuity would be subject to the final decision to be taken by the Court in the proceeding levied whereagainst, and that in the event of pending appeals being decided in favor of the petitioners/appellants, the authority would re-examine the impugned decision/action.
1. All these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise common issue and, as such, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together. Order present shall govern them.
2. Background facts of each case, however, are at some variance. They are, thus, noticed herein below.
C.W.J.C. No. 13323 of 2009
3. Petitioner superannuated as Touring Veterinary Officer of the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government. While in service, a criminal case (R.C. 45(A) of 1996) was lodged against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation under diverse provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “P.C. Act”). Upon superannuation, he was not being paid the provisional pension, as such, he filed a writ petition seeking appropriate direction upon the authorities of the respondent State to pay him the provisional pension. The same was allowed vide order dated 26.8.1999 (reported in 1999 (3) P.L.J.R. 949) whereafter he was in receipt thereof. In the meantime, he was convicted under those charges and sentenced besides imposition of fine by the Trial Court in the said criminal case launched against him and others vide judgment and order of conviction dated 25.9.2006 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). Aggrieved thereby, he filed appeal which has been admitted to hearing and he has been directed to be released on bail vide order dated 10.12.2007. The respondents thereafter served him a notice dated 14.1.2008 (Annexure-4) to show cause as to why pension be not stopped on account of his conviction of serious offence(s) relating to corruption charges. Petitioner filed reply (Annexure-5) stating therein that his appeal was pending consideration which should be treated as continuation of the criminal proceeding. On a consideration thereof, the respondent passed an order in purported exercise of powers conferred on the State under Rules 43(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules stopping payment of pension/gratuity on permanent basis. The said order has been challenged by filing the present writ petition.
C.W.J.C. No. 13795 of 2009
4. Petitioner was appointed as Reserve Veterinary Officer. While in service, criminal prosecutions being R.C. 35(A) of 1996, R.C. 39(A) of 1996 R.C. 40A) of 1996 and R.C. 45(A) of 1996 were launched by the Central Bureau of Investigation against him and others under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code and P.C. Act. He was placed under suspension by order dated 1.2.1996. In the said departmental proceeding, he was ultimately held guilty and dismissed from service w.e.f. 11.3.1996. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2357 of 1998. A Bench of this Court by order dated 31.8.1999 (Annexure-1) quashed and set aside the order of dismissal and he was reinstated in service. The authorities were, however, granted liberty to proceed in the matter afresh, if so advised, in accordance with law. In the meantime, the petitioner was convicted by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., in Case No. R.C. 40(A) of 1996 by judgment of conviction dated 26.9.2006 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4) and was sentenced for diverse term(s) besides imposition of heavy fine. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed a writ appeal being L.P.A. No. 570 of 2005 wherein this Court by an interim order dated 11.7.2005 directed for payment of 90% of pension and gratuity, if not already paid. The final outcome of the writ appeal has, however, not placed on record. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence, he filed an appeal which was admitted to hearing by order dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure-3). Subsequently, by order dated 10.8.2007, he was directed to be released on bail. The respondent issued a notice dated 14.1.2008 (Annexure-5) to show cause as to why payment of pension be not stopped permanently in exercise of power conferred on the respondents under Rules 43(a)
