JUDGMENT :

(Per : Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition challenge has been raised to a judgment and order dated 12.10.2022 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00327/2021.

3. The petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid Original Application challenging an order dated 12.04.2021, whereby the President of India had ordered withholding of pension and gratuity payable to the applicant/ petitioner in its entirety. This decision was taken on the basis of petitioner's conviction on 26.04.2014 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI (West), Lucknow. He was sentenced to undergo maximum five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.90,000/-. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow has dismissed the Original Application.

4. The contention of petitioner's counsel before us was that there is a time limit of four years prescribed in Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which has not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 12.04.2021 nor has the Tribunal taken into consideration the said proviso. In this context he referred to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) read with Rule 9(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The other contention was that the petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.590 of 2014 before the High Court where the appeal is still pending wherein his sentence has been stayed and, as, by virtue of pendency of the appeal the said conviction has not attained finality rather the judicial proceedings are still continuing, therefore, an order under Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 could not have been passed but this aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow while passing the order dated 12.04.2021 and the judgment dated 12.10.2022 as the petitioner retired on 30.06.2000 and the charge sheet was filed in August, 2000, whereas the order dated 12.04.2021 has been passed beyond a period of four years. In this contention he referred to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) read with Rule 9(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. These were the only two grounds pressed before us.

5. Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as under :-

"9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension - [(1) The President reserves to himself 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 permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement :

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem].

(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-e