Writ Petition No. 6627 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 6627 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: MR. B. A. LAKSHMAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI. M. ARASAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION-SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE (RETIRED), CHIKKI, 3944L, 17TH ‘E’ CROSS, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. HANJER RAGHAVENDRA BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110 066. 2. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 066. (BY SRI. A.D. VIJAYA HAVANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. V. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 170/00023/2021 (ANNEXURE-A), ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This writ petition has been filed by Sri. B.A.Lakshman Kumar (petitioner) challenging the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in OA No.170/00023/2021, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the original application by stating in paragraphs No.21 and 22 as under: “21. We are conscious about the decision of N.K.Suparna (supra), but in view of the judgment of Sareen's case (supra) an authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently followed by the other benches of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 CAT, we find it appropriate to consider the same as relevant for the disposal of the present OA. Similarly, the ratio of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Chandran's case supra would throw some light on the controversy involved herein albeit the issue of DCRG was involved therein. Since, only the operation of the sentence has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka not the conviction of the applicant, keeping the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sareen and K.Chandran's case (supra), the pendency of judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court cannot come to the assistance of the applicant. The decision taken by the respondents being in conformity with the statutory provisions, no interference is warranted by this Tribunal. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the application. Accordingly, stands dismissed. However, in the event of the applicant succeeding in the pending criminal appeal, the orders impugned needs re-consideration in as much as withholding of pension and gratuity as well as the other retiral benefits are concerned.” 2. The facts to be noted from the writ petition are, the petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent of Customs, Postal Appraisal Department, Museum Road, Bengaluru, was accused of demanding a bribe of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 Rs.3,000/- on the complaint made by one Sri. Mueen Farooq Hussain regarding the international parcel, pursuant to which CBI enquiry was initiated. Suffice to state, he was convicted in the criminal case by the concerned Criminal Court which had directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. During the pendency of trial, on 31.03.2013, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. It may be stated here, during the pendency of trial after superannuation, he was being paid provisional pension. The conviction resulted in the respondents issuing a show-cause under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘CCS (CCA) Rules’ for short) as to why the penalty of withholding of entire amount of monthly pension, so also the gratuity be not imposed on him. The show-cause notice culminated in an order dated 09.11.2020, whereby the competent authority decided to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 impose the aforesaid punishment. Suffice to state, in view of the penalty, the petitioner is not being paid pension, nor the gratuity. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal dismissing the OA. 3. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is, in view of Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the petitioner is entitled to at least provisional pension. We are not in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason, the petitioner having been convicted, has been rightly imposed the penalty of withholding pension, which includes Gratuity. 4. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the stay of the sentence having been given by the Appellate Court, he is entitled to provisional pension is not appealing for the reason, the stay of sentence would not mean the conviction has been set aside. The Tribunal has rightly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.C.Sareen -Vs.- CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584]. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023 5. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from many ailments and requires money for treatment, is also not appealing for the reason that the entitlement to pension including the gratuity has to be in accordance with Rules. The Rules do not contemplate payment of pension/gratuity in the facts. We are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the
Decision
OA. We also accordingly reject/dismiss the writ petition being without any merit. No costs. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51