dofp2024_00798 — When in a criminal case, sentence is stayed by the higher court and conviction remains, the man being a convict is not entitled to any provisional pension. However, provisional pension already granted be not recovered

When in a criminal case, sentence is stayed by the higher court and conviction remains, the man being a convict is not entitled to any provisional pension. However, provisional pension already granted be not recovered — The chunk provided pertains to the Applicant's subsequent legal proceedings following his conviction in Special Case No. 36 of 2011, where he was sentenced for five years consecutively under various ... — Facts: The Applicant while working as Assistant Postmaster, Saharanpur H.O. was suspended and served with a major penalty charge-sheet and in addition, a criminal case was lodged and during the pendency of these proceedings, Applicant was allowed to retire with effect from 31-1-2010 with provisional pension vide Order, dated 21-1-2010. FIR was registered and charge-sheet was submitted by the competent authority. Applicant denied the charges. Special Case No. 34 of 2011 (CBI v. Brij Bhushan Pal) was registered under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2), read with Section 13(1)

(c) and

(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad had passed an order in Special Case No. 34 of 2011 and punished the Applicant with maximum 4 years imprisonment. Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 4573 of 2012 was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and Applicant was enlarged on bail. Respondent No. 6 issued memo under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 vide which he reached at a tentative conclusion for 50% reduction of pension for 8 years on the basis of conviction order. Applicant submitted his reply against show-cause notice. Learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Ghaziabad had passed the order of conviction in Special Case No. 36 of 2011 (CBI v. Prashant Tyagi) for maximum 5 years consecutively in different sections along with fine. Applicant aggrieved with the order passed in Special Case No. 36 of 2011 approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 2989 of 2013 which was admitted for hearing on merit and Applicant was enlarged on bail. After sometime, withdrawing the said notice, Respondents again issued impugned show-cause notice under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and sought reply against the tentative conclusion about withholding of full pension and entire amount of gratuity on the ground of order of conviction. Applicant submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. Inquiry report was communicated to the Applicant. Applicant also submitted his defence against the enquiry report. Respondents have passed the impugned Order, dated 21-2-2017 by which Respondents have withhold the 100% monthly pension on permanent basis and further 100% of gratuity admissible to him has also been withheld. Applicant challenged these orders. Respondents filed counter reply by which it is stated that the Applicant was found responsible for defalcation in accounts of different category of saving scheme and was placed under suspension. On FIR, the Applicant was also remained in judicial custody from 26-2-2007 to 18-8-2011. In Special Case No. 34 of 2011 and 36 of 2011, he was punished for four years RI with fine and five years RI with fine. Applicant filed Appeal No. 4573 of 2012 and Appeal No. 2984 of 2013 and in both the cases, Hon'ble High Court enlarged the Applicant on bail and has not granted any stay on the conviction order passed by the Special Applicant filed O.A. No. 1623 of 2011 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order, dated 13-11-2013. Recall Application filed by the Applicant was also dismissed. Applicant filed writ petition No. 8554 of 2015 and the said writ petition is still pending before the Hon'ble High Court but no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court. Whole case along with case record was submitted to the UPSC for seeking the advice. On receipt of UPSC advice, dated 3-8-2016, the same was given to the Applicant vide Letter, dated 8-8-2016 for submitting representation within 15 days. Later on it was decided on behalf of the Hon'ble President of India vide Letter, dated 21-2-2017 to award a punishment of withholding of 100% of monthly pension on permanent basis and 100% gratuity admissible to him. This has been challenged by the Applicant. State is not obliged to financially support a Government servant who has been found guilty in a case of corruption by the criminal court either provisionally (during pendency of this criminal appeal), or otherwise. If the exoneration is on merits, he may be entitled to claim revocation of the Order under Rule 19

(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules or Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, as the case may be. However, if the exoneration is on purely technical grounds, he may not even be entitled to derive benefit of his exoneration.