The judgment established that a government servant found guilty in a corruption case by the criminal court is not entitled to provisional pension during the pendency of the appeal, and the State is not obliged to financially support such a government servant.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPLs. 23624/2023 & 23789/2023 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6022/2023, CM APPL. 23623/2023

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated March 10, 2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', in short) in Original Application No.347/2017 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner.

2. The OA was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated November 23, 2016 whereby the respondents have forfeited the pension and Gratuity as payable to the petitioner. The order dated November 23, 2016, reads as under:

"18. WHEREAS after taking into account the submission of Shri Janak Raj, advice of DOP&T and full facts of the case, it may be observed that conviction of Shri Janak Raj, Ex. Asstt. Drug Controller of India, DGHS, New Delhi has not so far been set aside or stayed by the High Court and he has also not brought out any new facts which could have a bearing on the tentative decision of the Competent Authority for imposing penalty of 100% cut in pension and 100% cut in gratuity as admissible to him.

19. Now THEREFORE, the President being the Disciplinary Authority in the case after careful consideration of all the documents placed on record, facts and circumstances of the case, submission/representation of Shri Shri Janak Raj, the then Assistant Drug Controller of India, DGHS, New Dell dated 15/4/2015, advice of UPSC dated 21/4/2016, representation of Shri Janak Raj dated 13/5/2016 on the advice of UPSC made available to him vide memorandum dated 25/5/2016 and circumstances of the case in entirety has, come to the conclusion that ends of justice in the case would be met, if a penalty of 100% (one hundred percent) cut in pension and also 100%(one hundred percent) cut in gratuity, admissible to Shri Janak Raj, ADCT) (Retd) on a permanent basis be imposed with immediate effect."

3. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the respondents referred to above, i.e., November 23, 2016 by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584 wherein the Supreme Court in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 stated as under:

"7. Shri Vikram Chaudhari, learned counsel for the appellant repeated before us those grounds and further submitted that as a trial can logically reach its final end only when the appellate court decides the matter the conviction passed by the trial court cannot be treated as having become absolute. He made an endeavour to draw support for the said proposition from the following observations made by this Court in Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., [(2001) 4 SCC 355: 2001 SCC (Cri) 714]: (SCC p. 357, para 5)

"Appeal being a statutory right, the trial court's verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the appeal and for that purpose his trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction."

8. By the said observation this Court did not mean that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court would remain in limbo automatically when they are challenged in appeal. The said observation was made in a different context altogether when notice of the executive government was drawn to the need to appoint requisite number of Judges to cope up with the increased pressure on the existing judicial apparatus, and for highlighting the consequences of non-filling existing vacancies of Judges in the High Courts. We are unable to appreciate how the said observation can be culled out of the said context for the purpose of using it in a different context altogether such as this where the convicted accused is seeking to have an order of conviction suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

9. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") deals with the powers of the appellate court regarding suspension of execution of the "sentence or order appealed against" during the pendency o