Imposing a pension reduction after disciplinary action and criminal conviction for the same misconduct constitutes double jeopardy, violating constitutional protections.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P6 and P6(a)orders of the 1^st respondent and Exts.P7 and P8 consequential orders, whereby the pension of the petitioner is reduced by 20%.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner retired on superannuation from the service of the 1^st respondent. While he was in service, he was placed under suspension on 16.12.2005 consequent to arrest and detention in connection with the vigilance case No. 4/2005/PTA registered under Section 7, 13(2), read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged incident was that he was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.250/- from a prospective consumer. Consequent to that, a memo of charges and statement of allegations were served on the petitioner, that culminated in Ext.P3, whereby punishment of barring three increments was confirmed with cumulative effect.

3. In the light of Ext.P3, a value of three increments with cumulative effect was recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner which comes to an amount of Rs.2,44,080/-. Subsequent to that, by judgment dated 30.05.2014 in C.C. No.22/2008, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam convicted and sentenced the petitioner for simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the same Act, as per Ext.P4.

4. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against Ext.P4 judgment before this Court, which is pending. While the things being so, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.03.2015 proposing to reduce his pension by 20% for ten years invoking Rule (2) of Part III of KSR. Though the petitioner has preferred his reply and an order was passed as per Ext.P6 dated 07.09.2015 whereby directed to reduce 20% of the pension in respect of the petitioner for ten years from 30.11.2008 invoking Rule 2(a) of Part III of KSR, the effective date of recoveries was subsequently corrected from 30.11.2008 to 01.12.2008 as per Ext.P6(a), since the date of effecting recoveries was prior to his retirement.

5. It is submitted by the petitioners that Exts.P6 and P6(a)orders are illegal and arbitrary, since the offence committed by the petitioner was while in service and he was imposed with a punishment as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the parallel proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has culminated in Ext.P4 in the year 2014. Since an action was already taken on the same set of facts, the initiation under the provision of Rule 2 of Part III of KSR will amount to double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the said initiation is against Rule 2(d) of Part III of KSR. This is the background in which the writ petition is preferred on the strength of Full Bench decision of this Court in Ravindran Nair v. State of Kerala [2007 (1) KLT 605]

6. In response to that a counter afÏdavit has been filed, wherein it is contended that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the Vigilance Court, Kottayam. But as per Rule 2(a) and 90(12) of Part III KSR, future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period. Therefore, consequent to the conviction and sentence by the Vigilance Court as per Ext.P4 judgment, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to reduce the pension by 20% for ten ye