Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act justifies withholding pension; 'conclusion of judicial proceedings' refers to trial court's decision, not pending appeals.

ORDER 

Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :- Instant OA has been filed by tthhee aapppplliiccaanntt sseeeekkiinngg tthhee ffoolllloowwiinngg rreelliieeff::-

“ (A) That this application is being filed for quashing the Order dated 17.01.2019, passed by the Union of India along with memorandum dated 16.01.2018 and the UPSC’s advice dated 28.12.2018, whereby and where under the respondents have show caused the applicant as to why not a decision be taken to withhold 100% pension of the applicant on permanent basis.

(B) Further staying the operation of the Order dated 17.01.2019, passed by the Union of India along with memorandum dated 16.01.2018 and the UPSC’s advice dated 28.12.2018, until the final adjudication of the instant OA.

(C) For granting any other relief or reliefs for which the applicant is legally entitled.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the applicant, are that applicant joined the IPS in 1971 in West Bengal Cadre and served in the State till April, 1989. He was then appointed as Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi on deputation and subsequently he was re-designated as Executive Director (Vigilance).

2.1 According to the applicant, on account of conspiracy CBI instituted a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the complaint of one tainted contractor Ram Chander Singh and he was placed under suspension in September, 1992 and also a departmental charge sheet was issued against him on 10.12.1992. Applicant filed a complaint case in the Court of CJM, Ranchi against certain CBI personnel who were taken into custody. The said case was ultimately dismissed by the learned CJM Court at Ranchi for want of sanction for prosecution of the CBI officers which is also pending in appeal in the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court.

2.2 In December, 1992 CBI wrongfully instituted another fabricated case bearing no. RC 23(A) of 1992 in the Special Court at Ranchi for the purposes of implicating the applicant.

2.3 It is the contention of the applicant that on 12th December, 1997 (Annexure-1), the said disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant culminated into an order of penalty of compulsory retirement of the applicant under Rule 6(1) (vii) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 which was issued in the name of the President of India.

2.4 The earlier order of suspension, meanwhile, had been challenged by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an OA 517/1998 which was heard simultaneously with another OA filed by the applicant challenging the order of compulsory retirement and this Tribunal vide its common order dated 23.08.2004 (Annexure-2) quashed and set aside the orders of suspension and the major penalty of compulsory retirement.

2.5 It is further averred by applicant that after rejoining service as DIG, he received two promotions to the post of IG and ADGP of West Bengal and before attaining the age of superannuation the applicant was posted as Advisor (Security and Vigilance) at the WBSEDCL, a rank of Additional Director General. On superannuation the applicant received full pension and other retirement benefits.

2.6 In the meantime, the false and fabricated case against the applicant started on the complaint of Ram Chander Singh was continuing purportedly under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, and section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and almost nine years later, on 20^thSeptember, 2017, the Court of Special Judge, CBI at Ranchi in RC. No. 17(A)/1992-R convicted the applicant and sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for six mon