The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstanCesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the orders of Learned Single Judge, restricting the payment of pension and terminal benefits till the disposal of sLP No.007804 ol 2023 on the file of Hon'ble Apex Court and consequentiy direct the respondents to release the entire pensron and terminar benefits, pending disposar of the in the interest of .lustice counsel for the Appeilant: SRr pRATAp NARAYAN SANGHl, REpREsENTTNG SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI counsel for the Respondents: MS. L. PRANATHT REDDY (sr sc FoR CENTRAL GOVT) The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KI]MAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHTI'DDIN Writ Appeal No.459 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms' L.Prarrathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents.

2. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.76 19 of 2024 by the learned writ court.

3. The appellant, who is writ petitioner, faced both departmental proceedings, uide Charge Sheet in Lr.No.X/SC/227 lt53l12 l2006 dated 18.10.2006 and criminal cases prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation court. ln the crimina-l case, he was convicted on 23.O2.2O l0 and thereafter, disnrissed from service, uide Order No.2010/Sec/(ABtr)/PRR/5/7, dated 17.06.2OlO. , I 2 The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant 1n Crl.A.No.339 of 2OlO ended up in his acquitta-I, uide judgment datcd 29.11.2A22. He sough'. reinstatement. Since no action was taken, he aporoached n'rit court. In W.P.No.9752 of 2023, thc learned writ court directed the respondents to consider his representation, uide order dated 25.O4.2023 on the issue of reinstatement Consequently, respondent No.3 passed order dated

28.06.2023 setting aside the dismissal order. He was reinstated into service, uide Battdion Order No.61 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023. He superannuated, uicle Battaiion Order No.62 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023. The pericd ol dismissal rvas treated as 'Not on Duty' on the principle 'No Work No Pay'. Appellant approached the writ court once again W.P.No.76 19 of 2024 assailing the pending departmental proceeding. The learned rvrit court upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties, held that the charge sheet against the appellant in the departmental proceedings is on the similar set of charges, which rvere the subject matter of criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the learned writ court \ t J quashed the departmental proceedings continuing against the appellant. Letters dated 15.03.2024 and l8'O3'2O24' appointing the Enquiry Officers were also set aside' However, while setting aside, the learned writ Court observed that since the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the CBI against his acquittal is still pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant was granted liberty to make a suitable representation for release of pensionary benefits after disposal of the SLP. Respondents were asked to see that the appellant is being paid the provisional pension' Aggrieved by the last pa-rt of the order, the appellant preferred this appeal. 4 . Learned Senior Counsel for appellant submits that a-fter the acquittal of the appellant, merely on the pendency of the SLP, without any stay of his conviction, there is no reason to withhold his pensionary benefits. The applicable statutory rule also does not provide for withholding of pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings in favour of the delinquent employee. He submits that a Division Bench of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in the I l 4 .l case of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad v. R.S.Ramakrishna Raor relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the . case of State of West Bengal v. Hari Ramalu2 held that there is no power to the Government to withhold pension or retirement benelits after the criminal Court acquits the accused-employee. In that case, Rules 9 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised pension Rules, 19g0 were in question.

5. It is submitted that the Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, ,the Rules,) relied upon by the respondents also do not permit withholding of pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings in favour of the delinquent employee or accused. It is therefore submitted that the order of the learned writ court to that extent may be interfered arrd the pensionary dues to be released in favour of the appellant. 6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has referred to Rule 9 of the Rules and 'zoto tu; e1p ,7; 1pu, ' 2000 (4 ) SI_R I I ) submitted that the Railway Department may withhold pension or the appointing authority may withhold pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdraw a pgnsion in full or in part, rvhether permanently or for a specilied period, and order recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniar5z loss caused to the Railway, if, in any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.

7. She submits that the pendency of the SLP would amount to continuation of the judicial proceedings. She has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Secretary, &ocal Self-Government Department, State of

8. Kerala v. K.Chandran3 in particular paragraph 40 thereof' It is submitted that if the appellant is finaliy convicted, Railways would not be in a position to recover the pensionar5r dues disbursed in his favour. Therefore, the learned writ court has rightly observed that during the ' (2022) 12 scc to4 i J t 6 pendenc)' of the SLP against his acquitta-l, the appeilant '..1 would be entitled to make a representation for release of pension only depending upon the outcome of the SLp. Till .then, the appellant be paid the provisional pension. 9 . We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length and taken note of the material facts relevant to the controversy. We have also taken note of the extant rules applicable to the case of the appellant and the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the rival parties.

10. Rule 9 of the Rules, which confers powers to withhotd or withdraw pension upon the appointing authority in case of a railway employee facing departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings is extracted hereunder in ertenso: "9. Pqwer to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) (a) The President, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a post for which the President is the appointing authority; (b) the Railway Board, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a post for which arr authority subordinate to the President is the appointing authority, may, by order in writing, withhold a pension or gratuity, or both, cither in full or in part, or withdraw a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from a pension or gratuity of the r,r.hole 7 or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway' if in any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings' the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service' including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement : Provided that the Union tir'blic Service Commission shall be passed bY the consulted before any hnal orders President under this sub-rule: Provided further that where a part of pension is wittrheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum pension under rule 69 (2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the railway servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment' shall, aJter the final retirement of the railway servant' be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they manner as if the railwaY were commenced in the same servant had continued in service Provided that where the departmenta-l proceedings are instituted by aI authority subordinate to the Competent Authority to pass order under sub-rule (1)' that authonty shallsubmitareportrecordingitslrndingstothesaid competent authoritY' (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and clause (a), the departmental proceedings instituted under rulelloftheRailwayServants(DisciplineandAppeal) Rules, 1968, while the railway servant was in service and continuedafterretirement,shallhavenoeffectonthe pension and gratuity of the pensioner' I I l 8 (c) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the railway servant was in service, whether before his rcliremenl. or during his re-employment, (i) shatl not be instituted except with the sanction of the authority competent to pass order under sub-rule (1) in Format I : (ii) shall not be instituted in respcct of any event which took place more [hart four years before such institutron; ald (iii) shal1 be conducted by such authority in such place as the authority competent to pass order under sub_rule (l), may direct and in accordalcc with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made rn relation to the railway servant during his service: ProvideC that for the purpose of instituting departmental procecdings under this sub-rule, a memorandum of charges shall be communicated to the pensioner concerned in Formar 2. (d) where a full-fledged inquiry is conducted giving an opportunity to the such railway servant to show cause during the proceedings in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipiine arrd Appeal) Rules, 196g, aly further opportunity to show cause wou1d. not be necessarJz before taking action in same matter under sub-rule (1). (3) ln the case of railway servant rvho has retired on attarning the age of supcrannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings instituted under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Ru1es, 1968 are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as prowided in rule l0 shall be sanctioned. a/ 9 (4) Where tJre authority competent to pass order under sub- rule (1) decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension' the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of on the date of retirement of a the pension admissible railway servant. (5) (a) No appeal shall 1ie against any order made by the President under this rule ' (b) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1)' passed by an authority other than the President' shal1 lie to the Presidentandt}rePresidentshall,inconsultationwiththe Union Public Service Commission' pass such orders on the appeal as he deems fit . (6) The President may at any time' either on his own motron or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revisc any order made under tJrese rules' a-fter consultation with the Union Public Service Commission' ald may conhrm' modify or set aside the order; or remit the case to any authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case or pass such other order as he may deem ht: Providedthatnoord.erenhancingtheamountofpensionor gratuity to be withheld or withdrawn' shall be made by the President unless the railway servant concerned has been given an opportunity of making a representation against the order proposed and except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission' (7) The President may at any time' either on his own motion or otherwise review any order passed under these rules' where extenuating or special circumstalces exist to warrant such review or when any new materia-l or evidence which could not be produced or was not avarlable at the time of ( I l0 passrng the order under review ald which has the effect of chalging the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to his notice: Provided that no order enhalcing the amount of the pension or gratuity to be wrthhcld or withdrawa, sha.ll be made by the President unless the railway servant concerned has been given an opportunity of making a representation against the order proposed and except a-fter consultation with the Union public Senrice Commission. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule,_ ( t ) (a) the departmental proceedings shan be deemed to be instrtuted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Railu,ay servant or pensioner, or if the railway servant has bcen placed under suspension from an earher date, on such date; and (b) the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted, (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which t,.e Magistrate tal<es cognisance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on ttre date the suit is filed in t he court. (2) the expression "misconduct, means any act done or omitted to be done by the pensioner, during the period of servrce, including service arter redremenr, and ;ft:;: f":Jr:Tr,:lTJ provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, for which action under R Appeal) Rures, I e68 .",,.1:"1*::*fl:J";:tH:fl1 servrce. (3) ihc action under sub-rule (l) pensioner is found guilly of,. may be taken, if the (i) any corrupt practices during service; (ii) any misconduct whether in relation to the performance of offrcial duty or otherwise; ald (iii) any misconduct whether resulting in pecuniary loss to the Government or otlterwise. (4) the expression "civil proceedings" mean such proceedings in respect of a civil suit flled by the Government only. (Authority: Raiiway Board's letter No' 2023lF (E)III/PN1/ I dated 24.06.20241"

11. As the na-rration of facts discloses that not only the departmental proceedings has been quashed by the learned writ court but also the judicial proceedings in the nature of criminal proceedings prosecuted by the CBI has ended in the acquittal of the appellant, uide judgment da1ed 23.02.2010, whereupon the appellant has also been reinstated into service. He was subsequently superannuated aIId is seeking pensionary benehts on account of acquittal in the criminal case' 12. The question before us is, whether the pendency of SLP against the acquittal of the appellant, wherein there is no order of stay of the conviction, would entitle the respondents railways to withhold the pensionary benehts of the appellant or not? { ( -..' .t )2 I 3. We are clear in our minds that if the judicial proceeding or departmental proceeding has come to an end in favour of the employee, like in the present case, the statutory rule does not provide for aly exception to still withhold the pensionary dues of such an employee. The judicial proceedings have come to an end upon his acquittal' Mere pendency of the SLp before the Hon,bre Supreme Court without any stay on the conviction could not clothe the respondent_employer with a right to withhold his pension. 14. In this regard, the opinion of the learned Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra) is apposite to be extracted herein: "18. As per Rule 52(l)(c) of the pension Rules, ttle Government is empowered to withhold $atuity till the frnal orders are passed either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there rs no provision that empowers the Government to withhold retirement benefits. 2O. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the department has got a right to hle an appeat. But, it cannot be satd that the judicial proceedings have not \ t3 been concluded. Once the criminal Court acquits the accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance Therefore' the appeals hled agarnst the acquitta'l orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings' The same view was taken by a Division Bench of Ca'lcutta High Court in State of West Bengal's case (supra)' referred to above. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as follows: -The submission of Mr' Chakraborty to the effect that pendency of the appeal against acquittal will amount to co.,ti.,ratio., of the proceedings cannot be accepted' Continuatlon of the proceedings must relate to investigation, enquiry or trial, and such investigation' o. trial, if any' have come to an end with the ".rqri.| iralmint of acquittal. The same being continuing in the ir,"Lnt .as., is misconceived, only on the ground that an appeat there against is pending lf the respondent No l is .or-r,ri"t.a by the Appeal Court for commission of a criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules woutd be attracted- Keeping in view the fact that diflerent sub rules of Rules 3 operate in different frelds' we are of the opinion that sub iule (3) oi Rule 3 be held. to.be op...iirr" only in the case namely' when an investigation ..rqrl.y o. tiial remains pending and not or w.hel lhe .*ptoy.. person is acquitted The situations obtaining u.rd.. d,ff....tt sub-rule being absolutely different' in our opinion, sub rule (3) of Rute 3 must be given a restnctlve interpretation". not in continuation of original 21. If the appeal is the order of acquittal is a fina-l criminal proceedings, order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules' referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal Court, as already stated above, there is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benehts. The said benefrts, therefore, are liatrle to be paid immediately after acquittal order' the appeal or revision proceedings are in 22.lf continuation of ttre criminal proceedings, there will be no I I 14 -1 -.! ...1 end for the litigation ald the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits tlll conclusion of all petittons etc. Appeal against continuaLion of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benelits.,, revlslons, special acquittal, not appeals, 15 Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision K.Chandran (supra) rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the said decision, we find that the issue before the leared Apex Court was as follows: "On the conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performalce of ollicial duties and al appeal pending before the High Court, is the employee still entitled to the release of his death_cum-reLirement gratuity (for short "DCRG) is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals. We are, in fact, exarnrnrng a Full Bench judgment [K. Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2O2O SCC Online Ker 4I5Ol of rhe Kerala High Court which resolved the conflict of view of the Division Benches [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Kerala SEB v. K. Kesauan, 201.4 SCC Online Ker 9987; Arauindaksha panicker v. Accountant General, 2OOZ SCC Online Ker 376; State of Keralav. R. Muraleedharan Nair, 2Ol5 SCC Online Ker t8292 and, A. Rajanv. State of Kerala, 2OL4 SCC Online Ker ll942.l and ruled in favour of the employees. The controversy having been set down. the I I q l5 Government of Kerala, which is naturally aggrieved by ttre decision lK. Chandron v ' State of Kerata' 2O2O SCC Online Ker 4I5Ol of the Full Bench is before us on the aforesaid lSSUE

16. The employee had been convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act' 1998' In this factual matrix,theApexCourtafterreferringtotheapplicable Rules, and the precedents on the point' held as under: "4O. We also believe that it is a very restrictive view to disburse DCRG' on account o[ the proceedings against a pensioner coming to arr end, even where a conviction has arisen. This is espccially so where the convicted person has availed of tJre remedy of appeal An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings in trial and would be' thus' a continuaLion of judicial proceedings' For example' if no appeal had been hled, can it be said that despite conviction in the crimina,l case, the State is without authority of forfeiting the DCRG or pension for that matter? If it is not so, as we believe, then the pendency of the appeal caanot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG' considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain alrargements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the aPPeal." 17 . As the facts of the said case disclose that the judgment of respondent-employee was suffering a I ( 7 \ '.i I6 conviction, the question was whether the filing of al appeal by the convict would denude the authority from forfeiting the Death_cum_Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) or pension. In that context, the Apex Court held that pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal. 18. This case on hand is rather converse. Here, the employee had been acquitted There is no stay of conviction by the Honble Supreme Court. Mere pendency of the SLp could not be treated as continuation of a judicial proceeding, which has ended up in the acqurttal of the appellalt by the appellate court. The statutory rule also does not permit withholding of pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings. 19. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision in the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra), we are of the considered view that the learned writ court erred in holding that the appe,ant would be at libert5r to make a suitable representation for release of pensionary benefits reasons and the l1 after disposal of the SLP and till that time' he would be paid the provisional pension' This Court is therefore of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for release of his pensionary benefits upon his acquittal in the criminal case also for the reason that the departmental proceeding has been set aside by the learned writ court' The respondents shall take a decision on the release of admissible pensionary dues of the appellant within a period of four (04) weeks. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed' There shall be

20. no order as to costs Misceilaneous applications pending' if any' shall stand closed. SD/.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Board Extention, Dayabasli, New Delhi.

1. The Secretary, Ministry of Railways, The Urrion of lndia, New Delhi i. ft," cniit.ii, nait Btiavan, The-Railway Board, New Delhi' 5. in" oit"itor General, Railway Protection'Force, Railway-Board'New D^elhi' +. tne tnspector General-cum-Pcsc_., Railway Protection specaal Force Rallway 5 ihe Ctmm;nding ofricer, 5th Bettalion, Rarlway Protection Special Force, 6 On; CC to Sri Avadbsh Narayan Sanghi, Advocate [OP-U-C]- 7. One CC to [vls. L Pranathi Re'Odv (Sr SC for CENTRAL GOW) IOPUC] 8. Two CD Copies c. a-, Kimber Garden, khajamalai, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu' I To, TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:04lOBt2O2S JUDGMENT WA.No.459 of 20ZS t .1ri IHE 574t 13 AUE M Q" l rcr 6r z !) ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS [email protected] -rz-\t{x