The court ruled that withholding pension without ongoing proceedings violates legal rights, emphasizing no recovery from retired employees without fraud or misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petitioner herein had retired as an Inspector General (IG) under the Sashatra Seema Bal (SSB), on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2020. After his retirement, the writ petitioner had been drawing provisional pension till date as the regular pension of the petitioner has been withheld. Being inter-alia aggrieved by the fact that even after the lapse of several years since his retirement, the regular pension of the petitioner has not been sanctioned nor has his retirement dues been paid in full, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking the intervention of this Court. The facts and circumstances of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are narrated herein below.

3. It appears from the materials available on record that the petitioner herein had originally joined service under the Border Security Force (BSF) in the year 1981 as a Sub-Inspector. In the year 1984, he was appointed as a Gazetted Officer (D.A.G.O.) in the SSB. Over the period of time, the petitioner was promoted on several occasions. Eventually, he was promoted to the rank of Inspector General in the year 2016. While serving in the post of Inspector General, Frontier Headquarters, SSB, Ranikhet, vide order dated 21.11.2017 the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 41(1)(i) of the SSB Rules, 2009 on the ground that a Court of Inquire (COI) was sought to be conducted against him. Subsequently, vide communication dated 25.01.2018, the petitioner was attached at the FHQ, SSB, New Delhi, till completion of the COI contemplated against him. The period of suspension of the petitioner was to come to an end on 20.02.2018. Therefore, by the order dated 19.02.2018, the period of suspension was extended by another 90 days beyond 20.02.2018. Thereafter, it was extended again for a further period of another 90 days beyond 21.05.2018, by issuing office order dated 21.05.2018. In the meantime, by the order dated 23.03.2018, a Court of Inquiry (COI) was ordered against the petitioner so as to enquire into the circumstances pertaining to alleged (i) misuse of manpower, and (ii) irregularities during the recruitment test of Ct. (Dvr.) and Ct (Tradesmen) in SSB for the year 2017. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was asked to make his statement and also to produce any person as defence witness and/or any evidence in the matter.

4. On 28.03.2018 the petitioner submitted a representation inter-alia contending that the extension of the period of his suspension after the lapse of the mandatory period for review was illegal, more so, since there was no progress in the Inquiry. The petitioner had also contended that the respondents have failed to submit charge- sheet during the period of his suspension thus having a vitiating affect on his suspension itself.

5. On 07.08.2018, an additional Court of Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner with instructions issued to him to attend the enquiry on 17.08.2018 at 10 hours in the chamber of Additional Director General of SSB. However, no convening order of the additional Cour