Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3580
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R. N. Singh, J, Rajinder Kashyap, A
Dharam Pal Kherwa – Appellant
Versus
M/o Communications – Respondent
O.A./566/2017
Mr. Hardik Giri, Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Sonit Sinhmar, Mr. R. K. Sharma
The court upheld the validity of withholding pension and gratuity post-conviction, affirming that disciplinary proceedings can proceed simultaneously with criminal trials.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Withholding of pension and gratuity - Applicant, convicted under Prevention of Corruption Act, challenged the order of withholding his pension and gratuity post-retirement - The Presidential order was issued after due procedure and consultation with UPSC, thus valid - The applicant's claims of discrimination under the National Pension Scheme were dismissed as he was appointed before its implementation. (Paras 1, 11, 22, 24)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings are permissible - The gravity of charges and their nature must be considered, but disciplinary proceedings should not be unduly delayed. (Paras 10, 12, 19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant joined service in 1969, retired in 2008, and was convicted in 2010 for corruption. His pension was withheld in 2016 after disciplinary proceedings were initiated due to his conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Presidential order of withholding pension and gratuity, affirming that the disciplinary proceedings were valid and followed due process.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the withholding of pension and gratuity post-conviction and the applicability of the National Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Presidential order was valid as it was issued after the applicant's conviction and followed the necessary procedures under the CCS (Pension) Rules. The applicant's claims regarding discrimination were unfounded as he was not covered under the new pension scheme.
Result: Original Application dismissed.
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present OA filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the OA has prayed for the following reliefs: -
“(a) To issue appropriate order/direction to quash the impugned order dated 06.09.2016.
(b) To restore his pension and further to direct the respondents to pay his gratuity and pension with 20% interest with compound interest form due date till payment.
(c) To pass such other or further order/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant, who joined service on 01.09.1969, became eligible for full pension on 01.09.1999 but continued working until his retirement on 31.05.2008. Despite his conviction on 14.06.2010, he was paid full provisional pension until 31.08.2016. No action was taken against him until 12.05.2015, when a memorandum notice was issued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 . However, year 2014 was written on the memorandum instead of year 2015 inadvertently therefore, on pointing out of the aforesaid mistake Asstt. Director General (Vig-II) rectified the year from 2014 to 2015 and has intimated to consider the memorandum notice dated 12.05.2015 instead of 12.05.2014.
3. Impugned order of stoppage of his 100% monthly pension on permanent basis and withholding of 100% gratuity admissible to him was passed on 06.09.2016 in the name of President and it was signed by Hemant Kumar Assist. Director General (Vig-II).The final order, stopping 100% of his pension and gratuity, was issued on 06.09.2016. The applicant has challenged this order through the present OA.
SUBMISSION MADE BY RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents have filed their counter reply on 10.08.2017 wherein they have stated that the present application is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of it not being covered under any law for the time-being in force. They state that under the provisions of Rule 9 (2) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 , proceedings, if any pending, at the time of retirement of Government servant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, will be continued and decided under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The rule is reproduced herein as under: -
"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-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:"
5. The respondents further state that under the provision of Rule 9 (6) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 , departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the Government servant has been placed under suspension. In the instant case, the applicant was under deemed suspended w.e.f. 01.12.2006 vide Presidential order dated 18.12.2006. The rule is reproduced as under: -
"(6) For the purpose of this rule, -
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charge is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and"
6. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant has concealed the fact that he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f 01.12.2006, which proves that the disciplinary action was initiated from the date of his suspension. It is further contended that the final order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) was issued in continuation of disciplinary action after adopting due procedure, and thus, the same cannot be termed as unconstitutional and deserves to be upheld.
7. The respondents also state that in the pleadings, the applicant has challenged the authority of President with regard to withholding of pension under the provisions
