Pension benefits cannot be revoked without due process, and unrelated criminal convictions do not justify cessation of pension.

ORDER :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned orders dated 18.04.2002 and 11.06.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to restore at least the provisional pension to the petitioner which he was getting before passing the impugned orders;

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be issued in favor of the petitioner with costs and compensation.”

2. The instant petition is filed assailing the impugned orders dated 01.04.2002 and 11.06.2003 passed by the respondents ceasing the provisional pension, sanctioned to the petitioner, on the ground of the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case.

3. The crux of the matter is that the petitioner was an erstwhile employee of a Government Press and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from his service vide letter dated 29.08.1997. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has an excellent and unquestionable service record. However, an unfortunate incident took place on 26.03.1994, wherein, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, (Lt.) Mrs. Sobha Gupta w/o Mr. Sushil Kumar, committed suicide by hanging herself. Resultantly, Mr. Sushil Kumar (Son of the petitioner), on the same day submitted a written complaint/information in the Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. Subsequently proceedings as per the provisions of Section 174 of Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Executive Magistrate. However, on 27.03.1994 the deceased's brother Mr. Brijmohan lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner and other family members, under section 498A and 304B of I.P.C.

4. During the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast-track) No.2, Jaipur, vide order dated 27.02.2002, the petitioner was convicted and was sentenced to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (in default of payment, an additional three months rigorous imprisonment). However, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. bearing number S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 307/2002 titled as Sushil Gupta and ors. vs. State of Rajasthan. As a result, vide order dated 07.03.2002, the conviction order of the petitioner was suspended.

5. In this background, learned counsel apprised the Court of the fact that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, vide order dated 29.08.1997, the respondents granted him a provisional pension of Rs. 1270/- per month, with additional allowances (Annexure-2).

6. The controversy arose when without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 - The Director, Printing and Stationary Department, Government of Rajasthan, vide order 16.04.2002 ceased the pension and pensionary/retiral benefits qua the petitioner under Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as Pension Rules) and accordingly recommended the matter, for the approval of his excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan. The said recommendation under the powers enshrined under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, vide order dated 11.06.2003 was affirmed by the Governor. (Annexure- 3 and 4).

7. Whilst, the impugned order was passed, the appeal qua the concerned matter was pending. Hence, the petitioner was guided to hold/put a halt to any other proceedings for time being. Thereafter, in the year 2003, a notice for demand of justice was served upon the respondents. However, the respondents paid a deaf ear to the said notice, and no relief was granted to the petitioner. Moreover, the impugned order dated 18.04.2002, was passed exercising the jurisdiction under Rule 6(1) of the pension rules, which provides that any future conduct shall be an implied condition qua every grant and contin