The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from pension cannot exceed one-third of the pension originally sanctioned and the pension of a person guilty of grave misconduct cannot be stopped to the extent of 100%.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia , J.

1. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-3) whereby the provisional pension of the deceased employee had been stopped on account of his conviction by the Trial Court. Resultantly, quashing of the said order is sought alongwith prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authority to release the payment of gratuity and leave encashment.

2. Reliance has been placed upon Rule 2.2 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, Part-1 (for short 'Rules'), apart from the fact that the action was done without issuing any show cause notice.

3. The deceased employee was serving as an Assistant Sub- Inspector in the Punjab Police and on account of FIR No.28 dated 18.11.2014 registered under Section 7 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which had been registered against him, his pension case was not sent to the Accountant General for finalization at the time of his retirement on 31.10.2015. Accordingly, provisional pension of Rs.11,440/- was released to him, subject to the final decision of the criminal proceedings, vide order dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure P-1). He was convicted by the Special Judge, Sangrur on 08.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) for demanding illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- in case FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2014, which was registered under Section 420, 411, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station, Cheema. Resultantly, he was sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. On account of conviction, respondent No.2 stopped his provisional pension under Rule 2.2 read with Rule 2.5 of the Rules with immediate effect. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed challenging the said action.

5. It has been pleaded that the departmental proceedings had also been initiated and the inquiry officer had held that charges against the employee stood proved, however, the same had been kept pending, subject to the outcome of the criminal case. It was further averred that CRA-S-4515-2016 against the conviction dated 08.12.2016 is also pending before this Court. The State in its response justified the action on the strength of Rule 2.2, as the pensioner is convicted of serious crime, the action has to be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court. The image of the police department had been lowered by demanding bribe of Rs.3,000/- and the departmental proceedings had also been finalized, in view of the impugned order dated 27.02.2017. It was further averred that gratuity and leave encashment was also withheld on account of sentence of 4 years.

6. During the pendency of the proceedings on account of the death of petitioner-Ajit Singh, his wife was brought on record as his legal heir, vide order dated 10.11.2020. On 21.12.2020, Counsel for the State had taken time to file an additional affidavit regarding the departmental action taken.

7. As per the affidavit, the inquiry had been kept pending, subject to the final decision of the criminal case and further order was passed on 30.10.2017 (Annexure R-1/T) that pension of the employee be stopped and the absent period of 14 days on account of additional custody was treated as earned leave. For two days, the employee was stated to be absent and order was passed for these two days as 'no duty no pay'.

Rule 2.1 and 2.2 read as under:-

“2.1. Every pension shall be held to have been granted subject to the conditions contained in chapter VII of these rules.

2.2. (a) Recoveries from pensions.–(a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct.

In a case where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, action shall be taken in