Conviction permits pension withholding without inquiry despite sentence suspension, but order vitiated by non-application of mind, factual errors, and procedural lapses; requires reasoned fresh order considering appeal pendency and rules.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

1. MA No. 1278/2025

1.1 The present submissions are being made on behalf of the Applicant in MA No. 1278 of 2025. It is submitted that the Applicant has filed OA No. 1720/2024 which is pending before this Hon’ble Tribunal wherein the Applicant has challenged the order dated 19.02.2024 imposing the penalty of withholding of 40% pension permanently with immediate effect upon Shri H.L. Khurana (Applicant).

1.2 It is submitted that the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 has been passed without following the due process of law. It is a settled position of law that criminal proceedings under the provisions of IPC and PC Act and departmental proceedings under the Conduct Rules governing an employee can be conducted separately. However, in the present case, no departmental proceedings have been conducted under the relevant rules.

1.3 It is further submitted that the Applicant is governed by DDA Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1999 and the departmental proceedings can only be initiated under Regulation 25 for imposition of major penalty and under Regulation 27 for imposition of minor penalty. It is an admitted position that no proceedings have been initiated against the Applicant either under Regulation 25 or under Regulation 27 and therefore the Respondents were bound to follow the due process of law before imposing any penalty.

1.4 It is submitted that the Respondents, vide Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2023, without following any provisions of the terms and conditions of employment i.e. the Conduct Rules governing the Applicant, proposed to impose the penalty of withholding of pension and gratuity in full permanently upon Shri H.L. Khurana, ASO (Retired). The Applicant duly replied to the said Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2023, however, without properly considering the reply, the Respondents issued the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 imposing the penalty of withholding of 40% pension permanently with immediate effect upon the Applicant.

1.5 It is further submitted that the impugned order is stated to have been passed relying upon Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. It is pertinent to mention that the Applicant retired on 30.11.2016 and therefore the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 cannot be applied retrospectively. Hence, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

1.6 It is further submitted that even otherwise Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 or alternatively Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides for initiation of departmental proceedings subject to prior approval of the President and further mandates that such proceedings shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years prior to such initiation. In the present case, the alleged misconduct pertains to 06.11.2008 and the Applicant retired on 30.11.2016, therefore, the Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2023 and the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 are clearly beyond the prescribed limitation period under the aforesaid Rules.

1.7 It is also submitted that the Pension Rules mandate the release of provisional pension in cases where departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. The Rules further provide that recovery, if any, from pension should not ordinarily exceed one- third of the admissible pension. In the present case, there is no allegation of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government and therefore it is not even a case of recovery from pension.

1.8 It is further submitted that the Applicant has neither demanded nor accepte