The government does not have the jurisdiction to withdraw 100% pension and can only withhold 1/3rd of the pension originally sanctioned under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 Vol. II.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - In the present case, the petitioner is challenging order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which 100% pension of the petitioner has been stopped.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he joined as a Clerk in the office of District Election Officer, Patiala on 15.05.1965. In the year 1977 he was promoted as Kanungo and thereafter as Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar (Election) in the year 1993. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.1999.

After the retirement, the petitioner was sanctioned pension, which he had started receiving but his other pensionary benefits such as GPF and leave encashment were not paid for the reason that an FIR No. 29 dated 23.05.2001, under Sections 409, 420 IPC and section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988) was registered against him. The allegations in the FIR were that the petitioner continued to operate the bank account, which was under his charge prior to the retirement and there was an embezzlement of Rs. 5,44,844/-. After the trial, the petitioner was convicted on 29.09.2005 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Further under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years with a fine of Rs. 5,50,000/-.

3. It has been alleged that the petitioner has filed an appeal which has been admitted by this Court and the sentence of the petitioner has been suspended. After the conviction, the respondents started proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1970 (Vol- II) by passing appropriate order. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Chief Electoral Officer-cum-Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Election passed an order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) by which 100% pension of the petitioner was stopped. This order has been impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

4. Notice of motion was issued upon which the respondents appeared and have filed a reply defining the action of stopping the pension of the petitioner exercising power under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. It has been contended by the respondents-State in the reply that once the petitioner has been convicted under the Act of 1988, as for continuation of the pension the good conduct is must, after conviction, stopping of the pension by the competent authority is perfectly valid.

5. Ms. Anju Arora, Additional Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the Rule as has been interpreted by the counsel for the petitioner is not correct. As per the interpretation of the State counsel, where there is a conviction by the competent Court of Law, the State has full authority to withhold even 100% pension and it is only in the case where in the departmental inquiry an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct, the limit of withholding the pension not more than 1/3rd has been imposed and, therefore, the interpretation, which is being put forward by the counsel for the petitioner is incorrect hence cannot be accepted.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

7. The facts which have been mentioned above are not in dispute. After the retirement of the petitioner in the year 1999, on the basis of an FIR No. 29 dated 23.05.2001, the petitioner was convicted under the 1988 Act as well as under Section 409, 420 IPC. In an appeal, suspension of sentence has been granted in favour of the petitioner but petitioner remains a convicted employee even as of now. The argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 11.02.2016 (Annexure P1) by which pension of the petitioner has been stopped is that there is no power with the respondents-State by which whole of the pension can