Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Navin Sinha and Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
H.R. Choudhary - Appellants
Vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 12437 of 2012
Decided On : 27-01-2017
For the Appellant : Mahendra Shah and Kamlesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Sanjay Verma
Important Point—Any deprivation of superannuation benefits has serious consequences for retired employee and his family.
Headnote:(A) Service Law—Pension and Gratuity—Rule 10(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Petitioner already stood convicted in criminal case before 18/01/2005—Respondents made no reference to same as they never intended to withhold full pension or gratuity for that reason---If no charge-sheet was issued or served before superannuation and there were no proceedings under Pension Rules, withholding of full pension and gratuity was not only arbitrary but also illegal and unsustainable in law—Petitioner held entitled to full pension from date of superannuation alongwith gratuity and other superannuation benefits---Respondents shall pay interest on Gratuity.
(B) Service Law—Pension and Gratuity—A superannuated employee has no other source of income---Any deprivation of superannuation benefits has serious consequences for retired employee and his family---He may have to garner resources at this stage at considerable cost to maintain his standard of living or alternately be forced to reduce his standard of living for no fault of his. Pension and gratuity are not bounty but constitute a right to property under Article 300A of Constitution which cannot be deprived except in accordance with law.
Result—Writ Petition allowed.
Navin Sinha, J.
1. The present writ petition assails order dated 26/07/2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dismissing OA No. 102/2011 declining relief for payment of pension and gratuity.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he was suspended on 13/12/2004 under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as the "CCS Rules") in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. He superannuated on 31/12/2004. Till that date, no charge-sheet was issued or served upon him. On 18/01/2005 orders were issued that in view of the pendency of a vigilance case, provisional pension was sanctioned withholding Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity/CVP till conclusion of the vigilance case. This order was totally unjustified and based on a non-est ground as no departmental proceeding had been initiated till superannuation. The petitioner was therefore entitled to full pension and gratuity with interest.
3. It was next submitted that he was convicted on a criminal charge for the death of his daughter-in-law under Section 306 IPC on 16/12/2004. It had nothing to do with discharge of his official duties. On 29/11/2004, referring to the conviction show cause notice was issued under Rule 19 of the CCS Rules and which was duly replied. It was specifically contended that pension and other retiral benefits could not be withheld for that reason under Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the "Pension Rules"). The department had also issued clarification on 24/03/2003 that "judicial proceedings" referred to in Rule 69 did not include a conviction or a proceeding unrelated to service. The Tribunal gravely erred in denying relief to the petitioner.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that pursuant to conviction under Section 306 IPC on 16/12/2004, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29/11/2004 whereafter provisional pension was sanctioned on 18/01/2005. The criminal appeal against conviction is still pending.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. The Petitioner was suspended while in service under Rule 10(1)(a) of the CCS Rules in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. He superannuated on 31/12/2004. Till that date no charge-sheet was issued or served upon him. A departmental proceeding commences only after issuance of charge-sheet. That suspension was on account of a contemplated departmental proceeding for conduct while in service is apparent from letter dated 18/01/2005 sanctioning provisional pension and withholding gratuity etc. due to pendency of a vigilance case. The ground is factually non-est. There are no proceedings initiated under the Pension Rules.
7. The petitioner already stood convicted in the criminal case before 18/01/2005. The Respondents made no reference to the same as they never intended to withhold full pension or gratuity for that reason. If no charge-sheet was issued or served before superannuation and there were no proceedings under the Pension Rules, withholding of full pension and gratuity was not only arbitrary but also illegal and unsustainable in law.
8. The show cause notice issued to him on 29/11/2004 under Rule 19 of the CCS Rules was completely misconceived. Rule 19 reads as follows:-
"19. Special procedure in certain cases
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18-
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules.
the Disciplinary Authority may con
