ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated

24.10.2018 passed in O.A.No.170/00982/2016 whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed O.A. filed by the petitioner herein by stating in paragraphs No.1 and 2 as under:-

“Heard. The matter is in a very short compass.

Whether following the conviction, pension can be stopped or not is the issue. Normally under Rule 19, when the conviction intervenes while in service, the said person can be dismissed from service. But in this case, as she has already retired by then, the Disciplinary Authority will not get the opportunity to dismiss him from service. But then the next best thing is stoppage of pension. That apparently the authority is eligible to impose on him. Needless to say that if the conviction is set aside, it will be taken as the applicant had been reinstated back into service and then he will be eligible to the entirety of pension including arrears if any, but that depends on the order of the Hon’ble Appellate Court. At this point of time we need not consider that issue.

2. The applicant submits that this benefit of provisional pension has been allowed to several others. They are not in the party array, nor any details available regarding their similarity with the applicant. As such we cannot adjudicate on this aspect at all.

Therefore, OA lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs.”

2. The two pleas urged by Mr.Ranganatha S. Jois, learned counsel for the appellant are that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein for disproportionate assets, wherein, the petitioner has been convicted, against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal which is in continuance of original proceedings and as such, the provisional pension which was being paid to the petitioner while the original criminal proceedings were in progress, could not have been withdrawn. His other submission is that similarly placed employees are being given provisional pension. In other words, he is seeking parity qua, those employees who are being given the benefit of provisional pension even upon conviction.

3. We are not convinced with both the submissions made by Mr.Ranganatha S. Jois, for the reason that the conviction having been effected, Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, provides the competent authority to take action against the employee. It is not denied that after the petitioner was convicted, the provisional pension which is required to be stopped has been rightly stopped. Though an appeal has been filed against conviction, the sentence has been stayed and not the conviction. It continues to operate/hold good till such time, the appeal is allowed.

4. In so far as second submission of Mr.Ranganatha S. Jois, that similarly placed employees have been given the benefit of provisional pension is concerned, suffice to state the finding of the Tribunal in paragraph No.2, which we have already reproduced above, is justified. Assuming that certain persons, who are similarly placed like the petitioner have been given the benefit of provisional pension, the same shall not enure to the benefit of petitioner, when the final order has been passed by the respondents, which entails forfeiture of pensionary benefits upon conviction. We do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed Sd/-

(V KAMESWAR RAO)

JUDGE