Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 149
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.N. PRASAD, J.
Gangadhar Sahoo - Petitioner
Vs.
Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited and others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2007
Decided On : 27.4.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: M/s. Shashi Bhusan Jena, S.S. Mohapatra, S.Behera, S.Soren and A.Mishra.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. B.K.Nayak, D.K.Mohanty, S.K.Samal Mr. B.K.Pattnayak.
The main legal point established is that a pensioner convicted of a serious crime by a court of law may have their pension withheld permanently, and the pendency of a criminal appeal does not entitle the pensioner to provisional pension.
Headnote:
Pension - Criminal Conviction - Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 - Rule 6, 7, 66
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was involved in a criminal case and subsequently convicted. The authorities withheld his pension and gratuity permanently, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities were justified in withholding the pension and gratuity permanently due to the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to provisional pension during the pendency of an appeal and the consultation of the Orissa Public Service Commission before passing the final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to provisional pension as the conviction had been passed by the trial court, and the pendency of the criminal appeal did not qualify as a continuation of the original proceeding. The consultation of the Orissa Public Service Commission was not required as the order was passed by the General Manager, not the government.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality in the impugned order.
JUDGMENT
S.N. PRASAD, J.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the General Manager(HR&A), Central Electricity Supply of Orissa, Bhubaneswar by which pension and gratuity both in full has been withheld permanently and the period of his suspension has been treated as such, has approached this Court.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as Junior Engineer(Electrical) under the opposite party-authority was involved in a criminal case bearing Cuttack Vigilance P.S.Case No.63 of 1997 which led to initiation of trial bearing T.R.Case No.47 of 1998 registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The petitioner has departmentally been preceded on the ground of demand of illegal gratification which has been alleged against him in the F.I.R. The authorities has kept in abeyance the departmental proceeding awaiting outcome of the judicial proceeding pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction.
4. The petitioner has been convicted by the criminal court of jurisdiction and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-.
5. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before this Court, in which order of sentence has been kept in abeyance and thereafter the petitioner was permitted to avail the privilege of suspension of order of sentence.
6. The authorities thereafter passed an order dated 11.9.2007 by which pension and gratuity both in full has been withheld permanently. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 11.9.2007 has preferred this writ petition.
7. Submission has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is not sustainable on two grounds:
(i) The petitioner although has been convicted in a criminal case by the trial court, against which he has preferred an appeal which is pending for final hearing, as such pendency of appeal shall be treated as continuation of the original proceeding of the trial court, hence he is entitled to get provisional pension in view of provision as contained in Rule 66 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1992’).
(ii) The impugned order is not sustainable because in view of the provision as contained in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992, the Orissa Public Service Commission is to be consulted but it has not been consulted.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the appeal is pending before the higher court and as such pendency of the appeal in higher court will be deemed to be finding of the original proceeding and in that pretext the petitioner ought to have been given privilege as contained in Rule-66 of the Rules, 1992.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner since been involved in a case like the nature of corruption and he has been involved in offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, trial court has convicted him and directed to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.5000/-, hence the authorities have taken right step by keeping the departmental proceeding in abeyance during pendency of the judicial proceeding, the petitioner may not be prejudiced in the departmental proceeding and he may not disclose his defence in the departmental proceeding which he ought to have disclosed in the judicial proceeding, so that he may not be prejudiced in the trial.
10. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the moment the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case, authority in view of the provision as contained in Rule-7 of the Rules, 1992 has passed order of withholding pension.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
12. To adjudicate the issue it is necessary to discuss Rules of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, i.e. Rules 6, 7 and 66 of the said Rules which is being quoted below:
Rule-6–Pension subject to future good conduct – (1) Future good conduct shall be an impl
