Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J.
R.R. Dubey S/o Late R.G. Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited - Respondent
WPS No. 1627 of 2017
Decided on : 06-02-2024
Pension Rules - Withholding of Provisional Pension - Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code - Rule 8 of the Pension Rules, 1976
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Chief Engineer, had his provisional pension withheld after being convicted of corruption charges. He challenged the order, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the pension was withheld.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that under Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules, 1976, no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to withhold pension after a conviction. The court also cited precedents to support this interpretation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's pension could be withheld without affording him an opportunity to be heard, following his conviction for corruption charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules, 1976, no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to withhold pension after a conviction. The court also emphasized that the principles of natural justice are specifically excluded in such cases.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the withholding of the petitioner's pension, stating that the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The court also noted that if the petitioner is ultimately acquitted in the criminal appeal, he may seek legal remedy.
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, provisional pension granted to the petitioner was directed to be withheld under Rule 9 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short “Pension Rules, 1976”).
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Engineer under the Department of respondents on 25.02.1971. He submitted his joining on the post of Assistant Engineer on 13.04.1973 and thereafter he promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 30.06.1980. On 29.03.2000, an offence was with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code. On 31.12.2005, the petitioner was retired from the post of Chief Engineer. On 26.02.2006, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, on account of which, he was subjected to trial in Special Case No.1/2006 before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Lokayukt, Jabalpur (MP).
3. During the aforesaid period, the respondents had initiated departmental enquiry and directed to fix the provisional pension till conclusion of the proceedings vide order dated 02.03.2006 (Annexure-P/3). On 10.03.2011, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges on 10.03.2011 (Annexure-P/4) in the departmental enquiry. After passing of exoneration order, the petitioner had preferred representation for finalization of pension. Thereafter, on 05.05.2011, the General Manager (HR), CSPHCL has passed an order that suspension period of the petitioner shall be treated to be spent on duty for all purposes. However, his pension was not finalized. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.1186/2011 before this Court for finalization of retiral dues seeking following reliefs:-
(ii) for revision of pay scale with interest from 01.12.2005.
(iii) for payment of gratuity as per latest provision with interest of 18 % per annum.
(iv) for computation of final pension with revision and its arrears with interest.
(v) Interest through out in all the above heads.”
4. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition, on 27.07.2016, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years, with default stipulations. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur bearing CRA No.2100/2016, whereby, the concerned Court vide order dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure-P/2) suspended the execution of sentence and directed to release him on bail. Thereafter, on 16.01.2017 the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) has been passed by the respondents withholding provisional pension of the petitioner permanently.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the impugned order on the basis of conviction, neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor any show cause notice was issued to him. He would submit that the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 has been passed only on account of petitioner’s conviction on the charges of corruption in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, inasmuch as, the issue with regard to suspension of pension either in whole or in part should have been decided after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He places reliance on judgment passed by the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur in the matter of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. State of MP & anr, 2017 (4) MPLJ (FB) 428 on 18.07.2017 in Writ Petition No.1353/2011; in the matter of Ramadhar Singh Vs. State of CG, 2014 (3) MPHT 36 (CG) passed by High Court of MP in Writ Appeal No.441/2010, decided on 04.03.2014; in the matter of Gendram Sahu Vs. State of CG
Under Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules, 1976, no notice or opportunity of hearing is required to withhold pension after a conviction, and the principles of natural justice are specifically excluded in ....
A show cause notice is required to be given to a retired Government Servant convicted by a criminal court prior to taking a decision regarding his entitlement to pension.
Provisional pension cannot be granted to public servants convicted of serious crimes, as entitlement is contingent on the stay of conviction during pending appeals.
The decision to withhold a pension under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule should be based on future conduct, and if based on past conduct, Rule 43(b) should be invoked instead.
Withdrawal of pension for convicted public servants under Rule 8 of the Pension Rules is permissible without a hearing when the conviction involves a serious crime like bribery.
Pension withholding limited to 1/3rd upon conviction for serious crime under Rule 2.2(a) PCS Rules, pending appeal.
Withdrawal of pension under the Prevention of Corruption Act post-conviction is permissible without a prior hearing; automatic stoppage of 100% pension for serious crimes is justified under law.
The main legal point established is that the principle of natural justice must be observed even if there is no specific reference in the rule, especially if the consequence of the decision is going t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
