Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3154
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, J, Hukum Singh Meena, A
Dr. Beerma Ram Parihar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through General Manager, NW Railway – Respondent
OA | Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
For the Respondents: Ms. R.R. Patel
The court affirmed that a government employee's pension can be withheld upon conviction for corruption, even if the sentence is suspended, as the conviction itself is sufficient to invoke disciplinary actions under applicable pension rules.
Headnote:(A) Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 8 and Rule 9 - Penalty of withholding of pension and gratuity - The applicant, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, challenged the penalty of withholding 100% of his pension and gratuity imposed by the respondents. The court held that the penalty was legal as the applicant had already been penalized through compulsory retirement and that the conviction justified the action taken under the Rules. The court emphasized that the conviction stands despite the suspension of the sentence and that the applicant was not entitled to pension while under such conviction. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - The court found that the issuance of a show cause notice before imposing the penalty was in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, and the lack of a further inquiry was justified given the applicant's prior conviction. (Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a senior medical officer, was convicted for corruption and subsequently faced a penalty of withholding his pension and gratuity. He argued that the penalty was illegal as he had already been punished through compulsory retirement and that the conviction was under appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the penalty imposed, stating that the conviction justified withholding the pension and gratuity under the applicable rules.
Issues: The main issues were whether the penalty of withholding pension was justified post-conviction and whether due process was followed in imposing the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's conviction justified the withholding of pension and gratuity, and the principles of natural justice were upheld by providing a show cause notice.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the applicant's case and disciplinary actions. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of the penalty imposed. (Para 3) |
| 3. counterarguments supporting the imposition of penalties. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's reasoning regarding the applicability of rules and constitutional provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. interpretation of judicial proceedings and implications for pension rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. final decision and dismissal of the application. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Being aggrieved with the Railway Board‟s letter dated 9.12.2021 vide which the penalty of withholding of 100% of admissible monthly pension permanently and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible permanently had been imposed upon the applicant, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) by an appropriate order or direction, the memorandum dated 6n July, 2020 (Annex-6) issued by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(ii) by an appropriate order or direction, the order of penalty issued by the respondents dated 9.12.2021 (Annex-1) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(iii) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents be directed to continue the pension of the applicant month by month with all consequential benefits and if the pension is stopped, the same may be released with all consequential benefits and directions along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the same had been stopped till the date of payment.
(iv) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents be directed to release the gratuity of the applicant immediately with all consequential directions.
(v) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that:
2.1 The applicant was appointed as ADMO in the year 1998 and had reached to the level of Sr. DMO, Selection Grade in the year 2011 and had been in the panel in SAG cadre in May 2019.
2.2 While working as Sr. DMO, Railway Hospital, Jodhpur, the applicant was caught red-handed on 14.2.2017 by the CBI Jodhpur for demand of Rs.10,000/- and acceptance of Rs.8,000/- from one Shri Ravi Gurjan, Trackman, Minya Ka Bada, Halt Station, Samdari, Barmer and a CBI case being RC JDH 2017 A 0001 was registered on 14.2.2017 and he was arrested on 15.2.2017 and subsequently, granted bail on 6.3.2017.
2.3 Consequently, after going though the CBI Report and other relevant facts, the competent authority granted sanction of prosecution vide order dated 14.12.2017.
2.4 The CBI had filed chargesheet against the applicant in the Special crime case No.2/2018 filed under Sections 7, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for demand of Rs.10000/- and acceptance of Rs.8000/- from complainant Shri Ravi Gurjar.
2.5 The learned Special Judge for CBI Court had passed sentence and conviction order on 14.10.2019 for RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 in default of payment of find SI for 2 months and RI for 4 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 in default of payment of fine, RI for 2 months.
2.6 The applicant was taken into custody on 14.10.2019 by the CBI Court and consequent thereto, the applicant was placed under deemed suspension by the General Manager/North Western Railway w.e.f. 14.10.2019 vide order dated 17.10.2019.
2.7 Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned CBI Court, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan being SB Criminal Misc. (Suspension of Sentence Application) Appeal No.1120/2019 and the Hon‟ble High Court vide Order dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure A/2) had admitted the said appeal and ordered fo
