The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. T. MANJULA (SC FOR BSNL) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 &2:---- Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OI: INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER *&€:. I HON'BT F SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BIF SRI JUSTICE I-AXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY W.P.No .7814 of 2025 ORDER: @r. H, n'ble Si Jattie Abhina Kttzzar Shauili) Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2024 Passed in O.ANo.404 of 2022 bythe Gntral Administrative Tribunal, H).derabad, (for short 'the Tribunal), the Present writ petition has been filed.

2. F{eard Smt. T.Maniula, Ieamed Standing Coursel appearing for the petitionen-BSNl. 3 It is the case of the petitioners that the 1" respondent was working as Superintendent and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1" respondent aileging that he was involved in misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.96,603/-. Thereafter, a case in Cr'No'83 of 2005 of f-hnoor Police Station was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420IPC and the &,r 2 r same was numbered as CCNo.234 of 2007. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (ftnoor, uirle ordr:r dated 24.lt.2lll,acquitted the 1,, respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred Appeal i.e., C_rl.AIrIo .57 of

201.5 before the Special Judge for trial of cases under sc/srs (POA) Act-cum-v Addirional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The appellate Court allowed the criminal Appeal aitle judgment dated 26.07.2017 and convicte d the 1., respondent lor the offences punishable under Secti,cns 409 and 420 IP(l and senrenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of rwo yean and ro pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for rwo months lbr the offence under Section 409 Ipe funher to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years an,J pay a fine of R;.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for rwo montls for the offence under liection 420 IPC Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 1., respond.ent I i I I a/ J has approached this C-ourt by filing Crl.ANo '8t5 o{ 2077 and this C-ourt while admitting the appeal, suspended the sentence uide orderdated 31.07.2017. Nterconducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement agairst the 1* respondent uide proceedtngs dated 3}-ll-2077. Thereafter, as per Rule a0(3) of CCS Pension Rules, 2021, the Petitionen have granted provisional persion to the L" respondent uide proceedings dated09.10.2023. However, the 1" respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing O.ANo'404 of ZOZZ seeking release of pension and persionarybenefits' Vithout appreciating anyof the contentions raised bythe petitionen, the Tribrinal allowed the OA uide order dated 1+'08'2024 arrd directed the petitioners to release provisional pension to the

1." respondent and further directed the petitionen to Process release of regular pension as and when criminal case afiained 4 c finality in {avor,rr of the 1., respondent. Hence, the present wr1t Petltton

4. Learned Standing C_or.rruel appearing for the p,:titioners had contended rhat since criminal proceedings are pending against the 1" respondent, the question of granting provisional peruion does not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

5. Flaving considered the said submissions, this rlurt is of the view that admittedly, the petitioners have imp,rsed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the 1,, respondenr uide proceedtngs dated 3}.ll.2ol7.\ffhen the punisfunent of compulsory retirement was imposed against an en.ployee, then such an employee is entitled for grant of regular pension. Admittedly, the criminal appeal filed by rhe 1,, respondent is pending before this Coun. pending the 5 criminal appeal, the 1" respondent has approached the Tribunal seeking provisional pension. The Tribund' uide Award dated 1+.08.2024 diected the petitioners to release provisional pension. Though the petitioners have granted provisional pension uide proceedtngs dated 09.10.2023, denied the same on the premise of pendency of criminal appeal. \fle do not understand as to how the Petitioners are aggrieved by the direction given by the Tribunal. The I Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to grant provisional pension. However, if criminal appeal attained finality and if the 1." respondent is acquitted of the said charge, he is entitled for regular pension. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6 Accordingly, the I7rit Petition is dismissed. No costs' 6 C t Miscellaneous peririons, tf any, pending shlli stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. N. RAJ GOPAL AS SI TANT REGISTRAR i s Hydera bad

1. The Re istrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabacr Bench, 2. One 3. One High 4. Two BN GJP CC to SRt T'. MAN JULA (SC FOR BSNL ) [oPUc] CC to SRt cADt pRAVE EN KUMAR ,(Deputy Solicitor General of lndia), Court for the State of Te langana at CD Copies erabad. [OPUC] Hvd SECTION OFFICER To, 6 HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 ORDER WP.No.1814 oI 2025 1ll E S rAr€ ( c i 10 API zo25 :_ I rna c o ( / DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @48 *.?-- i"t+\6