IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALDEV SINGH v. CWP-13994-2023
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH BALDEV SINGH Vs. CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) Reserved on: 03.02.2025 Pronounced on: 10.02.2025 . . . .PETITIONER PUNJAB MANDI BOARD THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Mannu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the pe,,oner. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. By way of this Writ pe,,on filed under Ar,cle 226/227 of the Cons,tu,on of India, pe,,oner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer,orari for quashing the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P26) passed by respondent No.2, by which claim of the pe,,oner for grant of pension and other re,ral benefits has been declined. Further prayer is made to issue writ of mandamus by direc,ng the respondents to pay the pension and other re,ral benefits to the pe,,oner from the date of his re,rement i.e. 31.07.1996 along with the interest @ 18% per annum. 2.1 Pe,,oner joined the services of Respondent N: 3 - Market CommiBee, Lehragaga, as Fee Collector vide appointment order dated 16.01.1967 (Annexure P1). FIR No.36 dated 07.08.1988 under Sec,ons 148, 302, 307/149, 326/149 and 324/149 IPC came to be registered at Police Sta,on Ghagga, against the pe,,oner and others regarding the murder of one Gurmukh Singh and injuries to Bhagwan Singh & Avtar Singh. Pe,,oner was arrested on 25.08.1988 and sent to Jail. Pe,,oner was suspended by Market RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) CommiBee, Patran vide resolu,on N: 62 dated 23.09.1988 w.e.f. 25.07.1988 on report from SHO, Police Sta,on, Ghagha on his arrest in aforesaid case. Pe,,oner and five others were ul,mately convicted by ld. Sessions Judge Pa,ala vide judgment dated 07.10.1992 (Annexure P2) and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The convic,on of the pe,,oner was upheld by this High Court and even the Special Leave Pe,,on filed by him before Hon’ble Supreme Court was rejected on 26.11.2006. 2.2 In the mean,me, as the pe,,oner was undergoing life imprisonment, he reached the age of superannua,on and so Market CommiBee, Patran vide leBer dated 02.04.1997 (Annexure P5) ordered the pe,,oner to have re,red from service w.e.f. 31.07.1996. However, it was men,oned in the leBer that re,rement benefits of the pe,,oner may be linked with the case pending in Supreme Court. Pe,,oner then asked for release of his re,rement benefits having re,red from service. AGer obtaining legal opinion, the Punjab Mandi Board held that pe,,oner was not en,tled to pension and other benefits on account of his convic,on vide leBer dated 07.08.2000 (Annexure P9). 2.3 On the representa,on made by the pe,,oner for grant of pension and other benefits on his re,rement, the Punjab Mandi Board sent a leBer dated 18.07.2002 to Market CommiBee, Lehragaga, in,ma,ng that as per Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, Part-II, convicted employee has no right to claim pension etc., but as per the instruc,ons of the Government, it is the Punishing authority, which has to take a decision on the no,ce sent by the pe,,oner. Pursuant thereto, a show cause no,ce dated 29.04.2003 (Annexure P11) was served upon the pe,,oner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. AGer taking reply from the pe,,oner, he was ul,mately, deemed to be dismissed from service vide resolu,on dated 07.03.2008 of the Market CommiBee, from the date of his convic,on i.e. 07.10.1992 and it was further resolved that pe,,oner would not be en,tled to RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 2 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) any benefits. Copy of the said leBer is Annexure P14. Based on this resolu,on dated 07.03.2008, Administrator issued a leBer dated 07.03.2008 itself dismissing the pe,,oner from the service vide Annexure P15. Revision preferred by the pe,,oner was dismissed by the Secretary to the Government, Department of Agriculture vide order dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure P16). The further appeal filed before respondent No.1 was dismissed on 22.08.2012 vide Annexure P19. 2.4 The aforesaid orders dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P19) and the earlier orders by which pe,,oner was ordered to be dismissed from service
Legal Reasoning
with retrospec,ve effect were challenged by the pe,,oner before this High Court by filing CWP-24687-2014 ,tled ‘Baldev Singh Vs. Punjab Mandi Board and others’, which was partly accepted by seJng aside the orders of dismissing the pe,,oner with retrospec,ve effect from service, but it was leG to the discre,on of the authority to take a call regarding the grant of pension to the pe,,oner as per the order dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure P20). 2.5 Review pe,,on filed by the pe,,oner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this High Court on 02.08.2022 vide Annexure P22. Another applica,on was moved to recall the order dated 02.08.2022, which was dismissed by this High Court vide order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure P24), but competent authority was directed to take a call on the representa,on with regard to pensionary benefits. Pe,,oner then served a detailed demand no,ce (Annexure P25), but the claim of the pe,,oner for gran,ng the re,ral benefits was declined vide order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P26). 3.1 The abovesaid order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P26) has been assailed by the pe,,oner by way of the present pe,,on to be illegal, arbitrary and viola,ve of Ar,cle 14 and 21 of the Cons,tu,on of India on the ground that it is non-speaking, as the legal and factual aspects have not been taken into
Legal Reasoning
considera,on. It is contended that since the order of dismissal of the pe,,oner has been set aside by this High Court vide order dated 07.01.2021 (Annexure RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 3 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) P20), therefore, pe,,oner is deemed to have re,red from service on aBaining the age of superannua,on w.e.f. 31.07.1996 and as such, as per the seBled proposi,on of law, every re,red employee is en,tled to pension and other pensionary benefits. S,ll further, it is contended that Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, which has been used by the respondents to deprive the pe,,oner of his re,ral benefits is not applicable to the case of the pe,,oner, as it refers to future good conduct as a condi,on precedent for con,nua,on of the pension. However, pe,,oner has not commiBed any offence aGer his re,rement in order to fall within the mischief of the said Rule
Decision
and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3.2 Ld. counsel contends further that right to pension flows from the Rules and no order is required to be passed. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1971 SC 1409. Contending that pe,,oner is en,tled to pension and other re,ral benefits in view of Rule 6.16 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, pe,,oner has prayed for seJng aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P26) and grant him the pension and other re,ral benefits along with interest. 4. In reply to the pe,,on, the preliminary objec,on has been raised by the respondents that this writ pe,,on is not maintainable on account of the fact that statutory remedies are available to the pe,,oner against the impugned order, in as much as he can file appeal under Sec,on 42 of the Punjab Agricultural produce market Act and as such, writ pe,,on is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. It is contended further that pe,,oner has been convicted for heinous crime of murder and that said convic,on has been maintained up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, he is not en,tled for pension and other re,ral benefits. It is contended that it is a seBled law that pension and gratuity are a token of gra,tude for unblemished service, which is the last thing pe,,oner can possibly claim. Reliance has been placed upon Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel’s case, as per which even the departmental RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 4 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) enquiry can be dispensed with, where an employee has been convicted on a criminal charge which is very heinous. Defending the impugned order, it is contended that on account of the criminal conduct of the pe,,oner, which has led to his convic,on and that he was sentenced for life imprisonment, which orders have been upheld un,l Hon’ble Supreme Court, the benefit of pension has been rightly declined by way of the impugned order, which is perfectly in accordance with law. Respondent also contend that Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part II is fully applicable in the present case, under which the Government has right to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of pensionary benefits. With these submissions, respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ pe,,on. 5. 6. In rejoinder, pe,,oner reiterated his case. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record carefully. 7. Thus, what emerges from the above-said admiBed posi,on is that the pe,,oner served the respondent- Department from 1967 to 1988. He was suspended in 1988 on registra,on of an FIR against him rela,ng to murder. He was ul,mately convicted in October, 1992 and his convic,on was confirmed by this court in July, 1995 & then Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.11.1996, as referred in Annexure P-6. Pe,,oner re,red on 31.07.1996 and was later on dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2008 with retrospec,ve effect from the date of his convic,on i.e. 7.10.1992. However, the dismissal order as assailed by the pe,,oner, was set aside by this Court in CWP No.24687 of 2014 decided on 07.01.2021 Annexure P-20. 8. It is important to no,ce that in the above-said CWP, pe,,oner had assailed not only the order, whereby he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 07.10.1992, he had further sought direc,on to the respondents to disburse his pension and re,ral benefits from the date of re,rement along with interest. RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 5 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) 9. This Court, aGer holding that dismissal order with retrospec,ve effect to be bad in law, observed in its order dated 7.1.2021 qua the re,ral benefits of the pe,,oner, as under:- “7. Qua re,ral benefits of the pe,,oner, the same are governed under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II. For ready reference relevant of same is as below:- “2.2(a) recoveries from pension: Future good conduct is an implied condi#on of every grant of pension. The Government, however, reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioners is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. In a case where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, ac#on shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court rela#ng to such convic#on.” Perusal of above reflects that future good conduct is an implied condi,on for every grant of a pension. Government has a right, by following the prescribed procedure, of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or be guilty of serious misconduct. 8. As an upshot of aforesaid posi,on, the impugned resolu,on and order dated 07.03.2008 (Annexure P/14 and Annexure P/15) dismissing pe,,oner from service with `retrospec,ve’ effect from 07.10.1992 and the appellant order dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P/19) are set aside. Regarding pension, it would be open to the competent authority, if it so desires, to take a call in accordance with law.” 10. It is, thus, clear from the afore-said observa,ons that competent authority was given liberty to take a call in accordance with law regarding the pension payable to the pe,,oner, aGer observing that case of the pe,,oner for gran,ng re,ral benefits was covered by Rule 2.2 of the Public Civil Services Volume II. It is own case of the pe,,oner that his applica,on for reviewing the afore-said order was dismissed on 02.08.2022 and even the order to recall the said order dated 02.08.2022 was dismissed by this Court on 20.09.2022 RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 6 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) (Annexure P.24). There is nothing to indicate that pe,,oner ever assailed the order dated 07.01.2021 before Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus, the same had aBained finality. 11. The main conten,on of Ld. counsel for the pe,,oner is that Rule 2.2(a) is not applicable to this case, under which the impugned order Annexure P.26 has been passed, as his convic,on was recorded prior to his date of re,rement i.e. 31.07.1996. 12. Here itself, it may be noted that as per order dated 02.04.1997 (Annexure P.5), whereby pe,,oner was re,red from service w.e.f. 31.07.1996, it was made clear that re,ral benefits to the pe,,oner may be linked with the case pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is subsequent to his re,rement on 31.7.1996 that appeal of the pe,,oner before Hon'ble Supreme Court against convic,on was dismissed on 26.11.1996. Thus, re,ral benefits of the pe,,oner were linked to the case pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. A similar situa,on had arisen before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2019(3) SLR 184. In that case, during the service, FIR under Sec,on 302 IPC was registered against the pe,,oner in February, 1995. Though he was acquiBed by the trial Court but on appeal, the High Court found the pe,,oner guilty for commiJng offence under Sec,on 302 IPC and he was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 02.09.2008. Said convic,on was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. While the pe,,oner was undergoing the life imprisonment and was behind bars, no ac,on under Ar,cle 311 of the Cons,tu,on was taken and the pe,,oner was allowed to reach the age of superannua,on, which he aBained on 31.01.2012. The re,ral benefits of the pe,,oner were declined under Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the total pension was stopped. It was in this background that this Court held as under:- “9. Counsel for the pe,,oner states that admiBedly, the respondents have passed an order under Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules and under RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 7 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) Rule 2.2 (a), the total pension of a convicted employee cannot be stopped and, therefore, the order dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure P-10) is contrary to the law and the respondents have gone beyond their jurisdic,on to withhold the 100% provisional pension, which the pe,,oner was geJng aGer his re,rement on 31.01.2012. In order to support the arguments, counsel for the pe,,oner is also relying upon the order passed by this Court in CWP No.16316 of 2012 decided on 05.04.2016 to contend that Rule 2.2 (a) has been interpreted by a coordinate Bench of this Court to hold that only 1/3rd pension, which the employee was geJng can be stopped and not 100% pension. 10. Counsel for the respondents have rebuBed the arguments raised on behalf of the pe,,oner. 11. Ms. Anju Arora, Addi,onal Advocate General, Punjab has submiBed that the Rule as has been interpreted by the counsel for the pe,,oner is not correct. As per the interpreta,on of the State counsel, where there is a convic,on by the competent Court of Law, the State has full authority to withhold even 100% pension and it is only in the case where in the departmental inquiry, an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct, the limit of withholding the pension not more than 1/3rd has been imposed and, therefore, the interpreta,on, which is being put forward by the counsel for the pe,,oner is incorrect hence cannot be accepted. 12. The argument which has been raised by the counsel for the respondents has already been considered by this Court while deciding CWP No.24736 of 2017 decided on 01.12.2018. In the said case also, 100% pension was stopped aGer the convic,on of an employee and the same argument, as raised by the counsel for the State that it is only in the case of departmental inquiry, the sealing of not withholding more than 1/3rd pension has been imposed, has been considered and nega,ved. Relevant para of the judgment is as under: “In order to appreciate the conten,on which has been raised by the respec,ve counsel, Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II needs to be reproduced herein:- RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 8 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) 2.2 Recoveries from pensions:–(a) Future good conduct is an implied condi#on of every grant of a pension. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. In a case where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, ac#on shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court rela#ng to such convic#on. In a case not covered by the preceding paragraph, if the Government considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order, (i) serve upon the pensioner a no#ce specifying the ac#on proposed to be taken against him and the grounds on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within sixteen days of the receipt of the no#ce or such further #me not exceeding fi2een days, as may be allowed by the pension sanc#oning authority, such representa#on as he may wish to make against the proposal; and (ii) take into considera#on the representa#on, if any, submi4ed by the pensioner under sub-clause (i). Where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such part of pension shall not ordinarily exceed one-third of the pension originally sanc#oned nor shall the amount of pension le2 to the pensioner be ordinarily reduced to less than three thousand five hundred rupees per month, having regard to the considera#on whether the amount of the pension le2 to the pensioner, in any case, would be adequate for his maintenance. In a case where an order under clause (i) above is to be passed by the Government, the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the final order is passed.” RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 9 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) A bare perusal of the Rule 2.2 (a), which gives the power to the competent authority to withhold the pension states that a future good conduct is an implied condi,on of every grant of a pension and the government reserve to themselves the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or to be guilty of a grave misconduct. AGer no,cing the said, the Rule 2.2 (a) states that where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, the ac,on is to be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court rela,ng to such convic,on. In the next paragraph, it has been men,oned in the Rule 2.2 (a) that in case a pensioner is not covered by the convic,on then the Government is to consider as to whether a pensioner is guilty of a prima facie misconduct or not. In case authori,es find that pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct aGer gran,ng due opportunity of hearing to the concerned pensioner and aGer considering the reply, if any filed, the decision can be arrived at as to what ac,on needs to be taken against the pensioner. AGer no,cing the above two situa,ons, there is a power which has been given to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order of withholding or withdrawing the amount of such part of pension which shall not ordinarily exceed 1/3rd of the pension originally sanc,oned nor shall the amount of pension leG to the pensioner shall be ordinarily reduced to less than ₹3500/- per month. This is done so that a pensioner in any case has an adequate amount for his/her maintenance. The interpreta,on which the State counsel has forwarded that in case of convic,on, the Government has right to withhold full pension, is not borne out of the plain reading of the Rules. The proviso where the power has been given to withhold and a sealing has been fixed, is duly applicable in the case of convic,on by the competent Court of Law as well as in the case of grave RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 10 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) misconduct on which decisions the department has to arrive at aGer due opportunity to the concerned pensioner (departmental inquiry). Therefore, the dis,nc,on which is being sought to create by the State counsel, is not borne out of the reading of the Rule 2.2 (a). '' 13. Once the same argument raised by the respondent-State has already been considered and rejected, the same cannot be accepted in the present case as well and hence the argument raised by the State that the State has power to withhold 100 % pension in case of convic,on is rejected. xxxxxxxxxxx 17. Even otherwise, Rule 2.2 (a) has been interpreted by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.16316 of 2012 1tled as Sardara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others. Vide order dated 05.04.2016, this Court aGer reproducing the Rule 2.2 (a) in paragraph 7, a finding has been recorded by the coordinate Bench that pension more than 1/3rd cannot be withheld in any case. The relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment are as under: “7. In the wriBen statement filed, a plea has been taken that on account of Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-II Part-I [in short “Rule 2.2(a)”], person who has been convicted by Court has no right to pension and, therefore, his pension has rightly been stopped. Rule 2.2(a) reads thus:- “2.2. Recoveries from pensions.–(a) Future good conduct is an implied condi,on of every grant of a pension. The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 11 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) In a case where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime, ac,on shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court rela,ng to such convic,on. In a case not covered by the preceding paragraph, if the Government considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order,– (i) serve upon the pensioner a no,ce specifying the ac,on proposed to be taken against him and the grounds on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within sixteen days of the receipt of the no,ce or such further ,me not exceeding fiGeen days, as may be allowed by the pension sanc,oning authority, such representa,on as he may wish to make against the proposal; and (ii) take into considera,on the representa,on, if any, submiBed by the pensioner under sub-clause (i). Where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such part of pension shall not ordinarily exceed one-third of the pension originally sanc,oned nor shall the amount of pension leG to the pensioner be ordinarily reduced to less than three thousand five hundred rupees per month, having regard to the considera,on whether the amount of the pension leG to the pensioner, in any case, would be adequate for his maintenance.” 8. The above provision would go on to show that future conduct of the government servant is to be taken into considera,on. On account of convic,on on serious crime, ac,on can be taken. However, safe guards have been prescribed for ensuring that the person can maintain himself and part of the pension can be withheld which cannot normally exceed 1/3rd of the pension originally sanc,oned nor shall the amount of pension leG to the pensioner be ordinarily reduced to less than ₹40 per month.” RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 12 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) Therefore, it is clear that a coordinate Bench has already held that as per 2.2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, not more than 1/3rd of the pension granted can be withheld. 18. Counsel for the respondents states that while deciding Sardara Singh's case (supra), the Court took into considera,on the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.427 of 2013 dated 12.11.2014 vide which while interpre,ng Rule 2.2 (a) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that 100% pension cannot be withheld. Counsel for the respondents states that the said order was recalled by the Division Bench and, thereaGer, while deciding the same LPA, the Division Bench vide order dated 05.10.2016 allowed the LPA holding that 100% pension can be stopped. In order to verify the facts, the case file of the above men,oned LPA was summoned from where it transpires that the Division Bench allowed the LPA while interpre,ng Rule 2.2(a) as applicable to Punjab, which is being interpreted in the present case as well on 12.11.2014. As Shankar Lal's case was rela,ng to the State of Haryana, a review pe,,on was filed on the ground that Rule 2.2 as applicable in the State of Haryana is different and there is no 1/3rd sealing provided in the said Rule and, therefore, the order dated 12.11.2014 is liable to be recalled. It was under these circumstances that the order dated 12.11.2014 was recalled by the Division Bench and, thereaGer, while interpre,ng the Rule 2.2 as applicable to the State of Haryana, the LPA was dismissed on 05.10.2016. Even though the order dated 12.11.2014 passed in LPA No.427 of 2013 was recalled but it is a maBer of fact that the Division Bench while interpre,ng the Rule 2.2 (a) as applicable in the State of Punjab, also held that 100% pension cannot be stopped. Therefore, this argument that the learned Single Judge while deciding Sardara Singh's case inadvertently relied upon the order dated 12.11.2014 cannot be accepted. 19. Furthermore, withholding of the pension not exceeding 1/3rd is for a reason which has been enumerated in Rule 2.2(a) itself. As per Rule 2.2(a) a person should be leG with adequate amount for his/her RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 13 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) maintenance. It cannot be said that the said clause will only applicable in case a person is found guilty of grave misconduct in the departmental inquiry but not where a person is convicted by a competent Court of Law. Maintenance of a pensioner cannot be differen,ated by a judgment of a competent Court of Law in case rela,ng to criminal ac,vity or a finding given by the competent authority about a grave misconduct in the departmental proceedings. 20. Therefore, the sealing which has been put by Rule 2.2 (a) to not withhold more than 1/3rd of pension originally sanc,oned, will be duly applicable in case of both i.e. where a person has been held guilty by the Criminal Court of Law and where a person has been held guilty of a grave misconduct in the departmental inquiry and, therefore, the interpreta,on being extended by the counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted. 21. In view of the above, the order (Annexure P-10) is set aside. The opportunity is given to the respondents to pass fresh order in consonance with the provisions of Rule 2.2 (a), as interpreted by this Court on earlier occasion as no,ced hereinbefore. The present writ pe,,on is allowed in the above terms. 14. Similar are the facts in the present case, inasmuch as convic,on of the pe,,oner was recorded in 1992 and instead of taking any ac,on at that ,me so as to dismiss the pe,,oner under Ar,cle 311 of the Cons,tu,on of India, he was allowed to superannuate on 31.07.1996. It is probably for the reason that appeal of the pe,,oner was pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. By way of the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P26) passed by respondent No.2, claim of the pe,,oner for grant of pension and other re,ral benefits has been declined. 15. In the light of the legal posi,on as explained in Darshan Singh’s case (supra), by following Sardara Singh/s case (supra), withholding of the RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 14 of 15 CWP-13994-2023 (O&M) en,re pension cannot be sustained, as the pension cannot be withheld to the extent of more than one third. 16. As such, the respondents are directed to pass fresh order in consonance with the provisions of Rule 2.2(a) as has been interpreted by this Court in the case law referred above. The present pe,,on is allowed in the above-said terms. 10.02.2025 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9) (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes No RENU 2025.02.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Page 15 of 15