Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules allows withholding or withdrawing of pension if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or guilty of grave misconduct, but the amount withheld should not ordinarily exceed 1/3rd of the pension originally sanctioned.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - Present is the case where the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Director, Education by which, the 100% provisional pension being paid to the petitioner, has been ordered to be withheld by applying Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules on the ground that the petitioner was not having good conduct being a convicted person and, therefore, his total pension has been stopped.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in hand, certain facts need to be enumerated here. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Lab Assistant in the Government High School, Deep Singh Wala, Faridkot on 24.09.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to another school namely Government High School, Janerian, District Faridkot in the year 1992.

3. While working there, an FIR No.36 was registered against the petitioner on 23.05.1994 under Section 324 IPC. Not only this, another FIR was registered against the petitioner being FIR No.14 under Section 302 IPC at Police Station, Kotwali Faridkot on 17.02.1995. After the registation of the said FIR, the petitioner was suspended from service on 28.11.1995.

4. In FIR No.36 registered against the petitioner under Section 324 IPC on 23.05.1994, the petitioner was found guilty of the crime vide judgment dated 03.12.1997 and he was ordered to undergo sentence of 09 months imprisonment. Later on, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the said judgment dated 03.12.1997 was reversed and the petitioner was acquitted of the charge in the year 2002.

5. In case of FIR No.14 dated 17.02.1995, which was registered against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 26.03.1998. However, in an appeal preferred by the State being Criminal Appeal No.568-DBA/1998 titled as State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh, this Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence committed under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 02.09.2008 and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner has already preferred an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the decision rendered by this Court on 02.09.2008 by which he was found guilty of the charge levelled against him under Section 302 IPC and the said appeal has also been decided and the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld.

6. That even though, the petitioner was convicted by this Court on 02.09.2008 and he was serving the sentence awarded to him of life imprisonment and was behind the bars, the respondents- State did not take any action under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and allowed the petitioner to reach the age of superannuation which the petitioner attained on 31.01.2012 though on 05.10.2009, after the conviction on 02.09.2008, a charge-sheet was issued to him for remaining absent from duty. District Education Officer, Faridkot was appointed as inquiry officer on 25.01.2011. Even though he was asked to complete the inquiry within a period of one month, nothing came out of the said inquiry, which was only relating to the allegations of absent from duty till petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2012. It is an admitted case by the respondents that after the petitioner superannuated, the petitioner was given provisional pension by the respondents to the tune of 100%.

7. The petitioner kept on getting the provisional pension, till the same was stopped by the respondents by passing an order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-10), which has been impugned in the present writ petition. In the impugned order, the respondents have recorded this factum about conviction of the petitioner by this Court under Section 302 IPC in respect of FIR No.14 dated 17.02.1995 and by relying upon Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, according to which, a good conduct is must for the payment of pension. The total pension of the petitioner was stopped.

8. This