Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Venkateshwar Nath Pandey, S/o. Late Gupteshwar Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Government of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 307 of 2020
Decided On : 11-09-2023
Pension Rule - Withholding of Pension - Rule 43(a), Rule 43(b)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired government servant, had his pension and gratuity permanently withheld under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule due to a conviction in a criminal case. The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that Rule 43(a) was not applicable as the conviction was based on past conduct, and thus Rule 43(b) should have been invoked instead.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision to withhold the pension under Rule 43(a) was unjustified as it was based on past conduct. The court quashed the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 and the order issued under Rule 43(a, and directed the State Government to calculate the loss sustained and issue a show cause notice proposing the quantum of pension to be recovered from the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision to withhold the pension under Rule 43(a) was justified. 2. Whether the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 and the order issued under Rule 43(a) were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to withhold the pension under Rule 43(a) was unjustified as it was based on past conduct, and directed the State Government to calculate the loss sustained and issue a show cause notice proposing the quantum of pension to be recovered from the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the show cause notice issued under Rule 139 and the order issued under Rule 43(a, and directed the State Government to calculate the loss sustained and issue a show cause notice proposing the quantum of pension to be recovered from the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5416 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the decision taken by the authority as contained in memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015, by which, the pension and gratuity of the writ petitioner permanently withheld under the provisions of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had joined on the post of Touring Veterinary Officer, Madhubani, Block West Champaran on 14.05.1979. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to Mandar as Block Animal Husbandry Officer on 08.05.1990 and continued on the said post till the date of his retirement, i.e., on 30.06.2013.
4. An FIR dated 04.02.1996 was instituted by the department against several persons under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(c), (d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, being RC No. 53(A)/Pat. for alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of Government funds from the Department. The petitioner was not named in the FIR, however, the charge sheet was submitted against him on 11.05.2000. thereafter, he was put under suspension vide order dated 06.07.2000 for the alleged involvement in embezzlement of funds in the Animal Husbandry Department.
5. The petitioner was taken into custody on 08.06.2000 and was later released on bail on 30.01.2001. An order of conviction of the petitioner in connection with RC No.53(A)/Pat was passed on 01.07.2009, wherein, the petitioner was awarded with the punishment of imprisonment of 5 years with a fine of Rs.11,00,000/- failing which, an additional punishment of custody of 21 months will be awarded.
6. The petitioner preferred a criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.708 of 2009 and vide order dated 15.09.2009, the petitioner was granted bail by this Court and the said appeal is still pending before this Court.
7. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he continued to be under suspension and retired under suspension on 30.06.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice being letter no.264/2015 P.Pa dated 13.04.2015 along with memo no.363 dated 26.03.2015 whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to submit his clarification within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice as to why his pension and gratuity shall not be withheld for his alleged involvement in fodder scam case. The petitioner submitted reply dated 27.04.2015 to the show cause notice.
8. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015 for quashing of letter dated 13.04.2015 with memo no.363 dated 26.03.2015 as also for payment of post retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, provident fund and subsistence allowance.
9. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had filed counter affidavit dated 30.03.2016 wherein reference was drawn towards memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015 wherein a decision with respect to withholding of petitioner’s pension and gratuity permanently has been taken in accordance with Rule 43(a) of Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, vide departmental notification memo no.1169 dated 25.08.2015. The petitioner was having no knowledge of the departmental notification dated 25.08.2015 and therefore, the same could not be challenged at the time of filing of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015.
10. The said notification was again challenged by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No.9695 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No.3390 of 2015 but the said interlocutory application, however, was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to c
The decision to withhold a pension under Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rule should be based on future conduct, and if based on past conduct, Rule 43(b) should be invoked instead.
Pension and gratuity cannot be withheld without proper proceedings and findings of misconduct; Rule 43(c) requires adherence to principles of natural justice.
Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules is not applicable to cases where the misconduct in question occurred while the petitioner was in service and departmental proceedings had already been initiated agains....
Pension is a right of an employee and cannot be withheld without a proper inquiry and findings of misconduct; mere allegations or pending criminal cases are insufficient grounds for such action.
The main legal point established is that the principle of natural justice must be observed even if there is no specific reference in the rule, especially if the consequence of the decision is going t....
A government employee's pension can only be reduced for proven grave misconduct, not based solely on isolated allegations, following proper procedural safeguards.
Point of law: The Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanentl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
