##PAGE1##

Sl. No.20

27.04.2026

Court no.7

sp

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WPCT 2 of 2026

Union of India & Ors.

Versus

Shri Kalipada Sarkar

Mr. Ratan Banik,

Mr. Biswaraj Agarwal,

Mr. Tapan Bhanj,

Mr. Shankar Sarkar.

…for the applicant.

Mr. P.C. Das.

..for the respondent.

1. The subject matter of the instant application under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order

dated 16^th December, 2025 passed by 7the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata in O.A. No.

350/1531 of 2025.

2. The brief facts of the relevant case are that the

respondent Kalipada Sarkar was serving as

Superintendent, Central Board of Excise and

Customs, Siliguri Division, West Bengal. He

superannuated from service on 31st January, 2010.

During the pendency of his service, criminal

proceeding under the provisions of Section 13(2) and

Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 was initiated against him. Upon

2

superannuation, the respondent was receiving

provisional pension.

3. By a judgment and order of conviction dated 28th

November, 2023, the learned Judge, Special (C.B.I.)

Court, Siliguri found the appellant guilty under

Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent

was sentenced to suffer two years of rigorous

imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2 lakh.

4. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government, Ministry

of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBITC issued a

show cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 8(6A)

of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 read with Rule 25

of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

5. The respondent/employee replied to the show cause

notice and the appellant ultimately passed a final

order dated 18^th September, 2025 under Rule 8(6A)

of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, thereby

withholding the pension of the petitioner in full,

permanently.

6. Challenging the said order dated 18^th September,

2025, the respondent/employee approached the

Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.

350/1531 of 2025 which was disposed of by the

impugned order dated 4th December, 2025.

7. By the impugned order, the Central Administrative

Tribunal has, set aside the order dated 18^th

3

September, 2025 (supra) holding that since the

appellant’s sentence has been suspended and he has

been enlarged on bail, the punishment of the

appellant itself must be deemed to be suspended.

The learned Tribunal thereupon by the impugned

order dated 4^th December, 2025 set aside the order

dated 18^th September, 2025.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent would argue that

the impugned order calls for no interference since

the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 do not apply to the

petitioner and the appellant was required to take

prior permission of the President of India before

withdrawing wholly or partly any pension paid to

him.

9. It is next argued that since the respondent/employee

has been enlarged on bail, the order of the Union

dated 18^th September, 2025 was premature and

liable to be interfered with which the Central

Administrative Tribunal has rightly done.

10. This Court has carefully heard the learned counsel

for the appellant as well as the respondent. This

Court has no hesitation to hold that the Central

Administrative Tribunal has totally misunderstood

the difference between orders imposing sentence and

an order of conviction under the BNSS and/or the

Cr. P.C. The learned Tribunal has also failed to

appreciate that an order suspending a sentence and

4

granting bail against the order passed by the

Criminal Court is at best an interim measure,

suspending the undergoing of the rigorous

imprisonment of 2 years and payment of fine,

imposed on the respondent by the learned Judge,

Special (C.B.I.) Court, Siliguri. The order of

conviction until set aside by the High Court in CRA

(SB) 2 of 2024 or specifically stayed for that matter,

continues in operation notwithstanding bail and

suspension of sentence.

11. In the light of the above, the reprieve granted to

the respondent/employee by the High Court of

suspension of his 2 years of sentence,