Date v. State of Punjab an jab and others
Case Details
CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA UNJAB & HARYANA IN T ARH AT CHANDIGARH 261 Gore Lal CWP CWP-9905-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2025 Date ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab an jab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
raph, it has been mentioned in the the the e a pensioner is not covered by the ernment is to consider as to whether ther a prima facie misconduct or not. In t. In rave hat pensioner is guilty of grave g due opportunity of hearing to the the after considering the reply, if any any eeds e arrived at as to what action needs ensioner. e above two situations, there is a is a y to given to the competent authority to the r of withholding or withdrawing the pension which shall not ordinarily arily hall sion originally sanctioned nor shall be n left to the pensioner shall be s than Rs.3500/- per month. This is is is ount in any case has an adequate amount The interpretation wh forwarded that in case of con right to withhold full pension, reading of the Rules. The prov given to withhold and a seal applicable in the case of convi of Law as well as in the case o decisions the department h the concern to opportunity inquiry). Therefore, the distinc create by the State counsel, is n the Rule 2.2 (a). '' n which the State counsel has has of conviction, the Government has has lain nsion, is not borne out of the plain e proviso where the power has been een a sealing has been fixed, is duly duly ourt conviction by the competent Court case of grave misconduct on which hich ent has to arrive at after due due ntal ncerned pensioner (departmental distinction which is being sought to ht to g of el, is not borne out of the reading of Once the same argume State has already been consid cannot be accepted in the prese argument raised by the State withhold 100 % pension in cas Furthermore, in the pres P-10) has been passed on th which was issued to the petiti clear from order (Annexure P charge-sheet, which was issue duty, the officer passing th Education Punjab notices the c respect of FIR No.14 dated 17 No.36 dated 23.05.1994. Thou order in respect of the charge being withheld on the basis of t At this stage, the counse that even if the interpretation, rgument raised by the respondent- considered and rejected, the same ame the e present case as well and hence the r to State that the State has power to in case of conviction is rejected. xure e present case, the order (Annexure eet, on the basis of the charge-sheet, petitioner on 05.10.2009, which is h is said xure P-10). After noticing the said rom s issued for remaining absent from ing the order i.e. the Director, ctor, er in s the conviction of the petitioner in FIR ated 17.02.1995 as well as the FIR . Though the officer has passed an d an n is harge-sheet but the actual pension is sis of the conviction. counsel for the petitioner points out out the tation, which is being given by the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 4 State counsel is to be accepte where the order is passed on t then only 1/3rd of the pen respondents in reply to paragra mentioned that impugned orde conviction. Relevant reply of p “14. That in reply to para No submitted that the contents o denied. However, it is submitte P-10 clearly shows that the pen been withdrawn on account of under Section 302/324 IPC. petitioner has been withdraw misconduct as future good con for getting pension.”
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C AN CHAUDHARY ***** ***** Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the Present : Mr. P or the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. Ms. S ***** ***** AMAN CHAUDH AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Praye yer made in the present petition rder tition is for setting aside the order dated 29.12.2017 .2017 vide which provisional pensio the pension/pensionary benefits of the petitioner have bee ave been stopped. 2. The i he issue involved in the present pe ent petition is no longer res integra as the same has b has been decided by this Court in e of in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab and other others, CWP-22174-2015, on 19.12. 19.12.2018, covers the present case on all fours, which which learned State counsel despite b le to spite best efforts has been unable to controvert regards egards the factual position and draw ts in draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementione ntioned judgment or cite any contrary reof ontrary law, relevant paras whereof read thus:- ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “The argument which has b the respondents has already b while deciding CWP No.24 01.12.2018. In the said case als after the conviction of an empl as raised by the counsel for th case of departmental inquiry, t more than 1/3rd pension ha considered and negatived. Rel has been raised by the counsel for l for ady been considered by this Court ourt on No.24736 of 2017 decided on ase also, 100% pension was stopped ped n employee and the same argument, ent, the l for the State that it is only in the ding uiry, the sealing of not withholding ion has been imposed, has been een nt is d. Relevant para of the judgment is CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 2 as under: ised he contention which has been raised “In order to appreciate the con ivil el, Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil by the respective counsel, Rul eds to be reproduced herein:- Services Rules, Vol.II needs to ood from pensions.–(a) Future good 2.2 Recoveries from ndition of every grant of a pension. ion. conduct is an implied conditio the right of of rve to to The Government reserve ing a pension or any part of it if the f the withholding or withdrawing a p rave f serious crime or be guilty of grave pensioner be convicted of serio misconduct. themselves In a case where a pensio crime, action shall be taken in the court relating to such conv by the preceding paragraph, that the pensioner is prima faci it shall before passing an order (i) serve upon the pensioner a proposed to be taken against h it is proposed to be taken and within sixteen days of the re further time not exceeding fift by the pension sanctioning aut he may wish to make against th (ii) take into consideration submitted by the pensioner und Where a part of pension is amount of such part of pensio one-third of the pension origin amount of pension left to reduced to less than three thou month, having regard to the amount of the pension left to would be adequate for his main In a case where an orde be passed by the Govern Commission shall be consult passed.” ious pensioner is convicted of a serious t of ken in the light of the judgment of h conviction. In a case not covered ered raph, if the Government considers ders uct, a facie guilty of grave misconduct, order,– tion ioner a notice specifying the action hich ainst him and the grounds on which en and calling upon him to submit, mit, the receipt of the notice or such such wed ng fifteen days, as may be allowed n as ng authority, such representation as ainst the proposal; and any, ration the representation, if any, er under sub-clause (i). ion is withheld or withdrawn the the ceed pension shall not ordinarily exceed originally sanctioned nor shall the l the ft to the pensioner be ordinarily arily per e thousand five hundred rupees per to the consideration whether the the ase, left to the pensioner, in any case, is maintenance. n order under clause (i) above is to is to the Public Service vice overnment, r is onsulted before the final order is A bare perusal of the R power to the competent autho states that a future good condu every grant of a pension and themselves the right to withho any part of it if the pensioner i or to be guilty of a grave m said, the Rule 2.2 (a) states convicted of a serious crime, t light of the judgment of t conviction. the Rule 2.2 (a), which gives the the sion t authority to withhold the pension n of conduct is an implied condition of on and the government reserve to e to n or ithhold or withdraw the pension or ime ioner is convicted of a serious crime ave misconduct. After noticing the the r is states that where a pensioner is the rime, the action is to be taken in the such of the Court relating to such ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 3 In the next paragraph, i Rule 2.2 (a) that in case a pen conviction then the Governmen a pensioner is guilty of a prim case authorities find that pe misconduct after granting due concerned pensioner and after filed, the decision can be arriv to be taken against the pension After noticing the abov power which has been given pass an appropriate order of w amount of such part of pensio exceed 1/3rd of the pension o the amount of pension left ordinarily reduced to less than done so that a pensioner in any for his/her maintenance.
Decision
ccepted, though not accepted, that that duct d on the basis of grave misconduct e pension can be withheld, the the aragraph 14 of the writ petition has has is of d order is not passed on the basis of ly of para 14 is as under: ara No.14 of the writ petition it is it is ence ents of this para are wrong hence xure ubmitted that a perusal of Annexure the pension of the petitioner had not not ence unt of his conviction and sentence the IPC. In fact the pension of the ithdrawn on the basis of grave rave ient od conduct is an essential ingredient A bare perusal of same stand taken by the respondent (Annexure P10) was passed no due to the grave misconduct o the petitioner was issued c Therefore, even as per the counsel, as the order was passe on the basis of grave miscondu withhold more than 1/3rd o Counsel for the respondents h view of the stand taken, the r reproduced hereinbefore. same would show that as per the the rder ndents before this Court, the order but sed not on account of conviction but duct of remaining absent, for which hich ued charge-sheet on 05.10.2009. 009. tate r the interpretation of the State s passed in the case of the petitioner oner sconduct, the respondents could not not ase. /3rd of the pension in any case. dents has no satisfactorily reply in y in ourt, the respondents before this Court, Even otherwise, Rule 2.2 coordinate Bench of this Cour titled as Sardara Singh Vs. Sta order dated 05.04.2016, this Rule 2.2 (a) in paragraph 7, a the coordinate Bench that pens withheld in any case. The relev said judgment are as under: “7. In the written statement fil on account of Rule 2.2(a) of th Vol-II Part-I [in short “Rule 2 convicted by Court has no rig his pension has rightly been thus:- “2.2. Recoveries from pension an implied condition of eve Government reserve to themse or withdrawing a pension or an convicted of serious crime or b In a case where a pensioner is action shall be taken in the ligh ule 2.2 (a) has been interpreted by a by a s Court in CWP No.16316 of 2012 012 ide s. State of Punjab and others. Vide this Court after reproducing the the h 7, a finding has been recorded by d by t be t pension more than 1/3rd cannot be f the e relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the that ent filed, a plea has been taken that ules ) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Rule 2.2(a)”], person who has been een no right to pension and, therefore, fore, eads een stopped. Rule 2.2(a) reads ct is ensions.–(a) Future good conduct is The f every grant of a pension. The themselves the right of withholding ding r be n or any part of it if the pensioner be e or be guilty of grave misconduct. ner is convicted of a serious crime, ime, ourt he light of the judgment of the court ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 5 the by the preceding paragraph, if the acie that the pensioner is prima facie ct, it shall before passing an order,– tion ioner a notice specifying the action ainst him and the grounds on which hich en and calling upon him to submit, mit, such the receipt of the notice or such wed ng fifteen days, as may be allowed n as ng authority, such representation as ainst the proposal; and tion into consideration er under sub-clause (i). the ion is withheld or withdrawn the eed pension shall not ordinarily exceed originally sanctioned nor shall the l the arily ft to the pensioner be ordinarily per e thousand five hundred rupees per to the consideration whether the the ase, eft to the pensioner, in any case, the representation, any, if any, relating to such conviction. In a case not covered by the Government considers that th guilty of grave misconduct, it s (i) serve upon the pensioner a proposed to be taken against h it is proposed to be taken and within sixteen days of the re further time not exceeding fift by the pension sanctioning aut he may wish to make against th (ii)take submitted by the pensioner und Where a part of pension is amount of such part of pensio one-third of the pension origin amount of pension left to reduced to less than three thou month, having regard to the amount of the pension left to would be adequate for his main 8. The above provision woul conduct of the government consideration. On account of action can be taken. Howev prescribed for ensuring that the and part of the pension can normally exceed 1/3rd of the nor shall the amount of pens ordinarily reduced to less than Therefore, it is clear t already held that as per 2.2(a) o not more that 1/3rd of the pen Counsel for the responde (supra), (sup Sardara Singh's case consideration the order passe LPA No.427 of 2013 dated 1 interpreting Rule 2.2 (a) of Pu Division Bench had come to pension cannot be withheld. states that the said order was re and, thereafter, while deciding Bench vide order dated 05 holding that 100% pension can the facts, the case file of the summoned from where it trans allowed the LPA while interpre to Punjab, which is being inte is maintenance. would go on to show that future ture ment servant is to be taken into into ime, nt of conviction on serious crime, However, safe guards have been een hat the person can maintain himself self nnot n can be withheld which cannot f the pension originally sanctioned ned r be f pension left to the pensioner be s than Rs.40 per month.” lear that a coordinate Bench has has .2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, ule, eld. e pension granted can be withheld. spondents states that while deciding ding into into the Court h in passed by the Division Bench in hile ated 12.11.2014 vide which while of Punjab Civil Services Rule, the e 00% me to the conclusion that 100% ents held. Counsel for the respondents was recalled by the Division Bench nch sion ciding the same LPA, the Division PA ed 05.10.2016 allowed the LPA on can be stopped. In order to verify rify was of the above mentioned LPA was nch it transpires that the Division Bench nterpreting Rule 2.2(a) as applicable able e as g interpreted in the present case as took ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 6 well on 12.11.2014. As Shank the State of Haryana, a revie ground that Rule 2.2 as applica different and there is no 1/3rd Rule and, therefore, the order be recalled. It was under these dated 12.11.2014 was recalled thereafter, while interpreting t the State of Haryana, the LPA Even though the order dated No.427 of 2013 was recalled b Division Bench while interp applicable in the State of P pension cannot be stopped. The learned Single Judge while d inadvertently relied upon the o be accepted. Shankar Lal's case was relating to g to the review petition was filed on the applicable in the State of Haryana is a is 1/3rd sealing provided in the said said le to order dated 12.11.2014 is liable to r these circumstances that the order rder ecalled by the Division Bench and, and, e to g the Rule 2.2 as applicable to 016. LPA was dismissed on 05.10.2016. dated 12.11.2014 passed in LPA PA t the lled but it is a matter of fact that the ) as interpreting the Rule 2.2 (a) as of Punjab, also held that 100% 00% t the ed. Therefore, this argument that the case hile deciding Sardara Singh's case nnot n the order dated 12.11.2014 cannot in ithholding of Further more, withho exceeding 1/3rd is for a reason in Rule 2.2(a) itself. As per R left with adequate amount for h be said that the said clause w person is found guilty of departmental inquiry but not w a competent Court of Law. cannot be differentiated by a ju of Law in case relating to c given by the competent author in the departmental proceeding Therefore, the sealing w (a) to not withhold more than sanctioned, will be duly applic a person has been held guilty b and where a person has be misconduct in the department interpretation being extended respondents cannot be accepted In view of the above, the aside. The opportunity is give fresh order in consonance wit (a), as interpreted by this C noticed hereinbefore. The pres the above terms. not the pension not reason which has been enumerated ated per Rule 2.2(a) a person should be d be nnot nt for his/her maintenance. It cannot ause will only applicable in case a se a the the ty of grave misconduct d by t not where a person is convicted by Law. Maintenance of a pensioner oner by a judgment of a competent Court ourt ding to criminal activity or a finding duct authority about a grave misconduct eedings. 2.2 ling which has been put by Rule 2.2 re than 1/3rd of pension originally applicable in case of both i.e. where here Law uilty by the Criminal Court of Law as been held guilty of a grave rave rtmental inquiry and, therefore, the , the the tended by the counsel for the cepted. ve, the order (Annexure P-10) is set s set pass is given to the respondents to pass 2.2 ce with the provisions of Rule 2.2 this Court on earlier occasion as as d in e present writ petition is allowed in After the order is passed the respondents authority, in given above, whatever the d petitioner is found entitled for him from the date it was stopp passed, the fresh order is passed by d by tion ity, in pursuance to the direction the the difference of the pension the ed for, the same will be released to d to ned stopped. Let the above mentioned ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) 7 exercise be carried out of pas period of three months.” in a of passing the fresh order within a 3. The petition is disposed of in terms of The p rms of Darshan Singh (supra). 23.01.2025 ashok Whet Whether speaking Whether reportable Whet (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No : : ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document