Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 799 (MP)

Dagdulal Sharma v. Union of India (UOI)

2005-08-02

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2005
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was working on Group d post in the Postal Department. On attaining the age of superannuation he was retired w. e. f. 1-4-1995 and was getting pension. A letter dated 17-11-1999 was issued to him by the third respondent informing him that as he is undergoing sentence of 7 years imprisonment for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for the present he can not be paid pension. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (for short the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 774/2000. The Tribunal by order dated 15-7-2002 dismissed the said O. A. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) THE petitioner contends that the said letter by which his pension is withheld is violative of Rule 8 (1) (b) and (2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Rules for short) as the said letter does not indicate as to whether the decision to withhold his pension is taken considering as to withhold his full or part of the pension as also whether it is to be withheld permanently or for a specified period. It also does not show that the action is taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. The petitioner relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry, , AIR1973 SC 834 , 1973 Lablc440 , (1973 )I LLJ33 SC , (1973 )1 SCC120 , [1973 ]2 SCR405 , 1973 (5 )UJ370 (SC ) and in the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, , AIR1976 SC 667 , 1976 Lablc474 , (1976 )II LLJ377 SC , (1976 )2 SCC1 , [1976 ]3 SCR360 , 1976 (8 )UJ260 (SC ) contends that he should have been afforded opportunity of hearing before issuance of such order of withholding of his pension which has civil consequences. ( 3. ) THE respondents contend that the petitioner having found to be convicted of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, they have rightly withheld his pension. ( 4. ) RULE 8 of the Rules provides as under :- "8. Pension subject to future good conduct.- (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. ( 4. ) RULE 8 of the Rules provides as under :- "8. Pension subject to future good conduct.- (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. (b) The appointing authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct: Provided that, where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five (Rupees One thousand two hundred and seventy five from 1-1-1996 -- See GID below Rule 49) per mensem. (2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of Law, action under Sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. (3 ). . . (4 ). . . (5 ). . . Thus, we find that the Rule 8 (1) (b) provides that the appointing authority may withhold or withdraw pension or a part thereof, permanently or for specified period by an order in writing, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Sub-rule (2) provides that for taking action on he basis of conviction for serious crime under Sub-rule (1), the authority shall take decision in the light of judgment of the Court relating to such conviction . ( 5. ) HAVING gone through the said letter dated 17-11-1999 sent to the petitioner, we find that the third respondent did not assign the reason to withhold his entire pension nor does he specify the period for which the same is withheld, he also does not say whether the decision is taken in the light of the judgment of the Court, relating to his conviction. On the other hand by the said letter dated 17-11-1999 the third respondent asked the petitioner to furnish copy of judgment of his conviction so that further action be taken. If the further action was to be taken after receiving the copy of the said judgment of conviction the order to withhold the pension even prior to the receipt of copy of the judgment of conviction can not be said to be justified. If the further action was to be taken after receiving the copy of the said judgment of conviction the order to withhold the pension even prior to the receipt of copy of the judgment of conviction can not be said to be justified. We also find that before ordering for withholding of the petitioners pension, he was not afforded opportunity of hearing. In case of State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that if a decision of a body or authority affects individual rights or interests, it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, ,, AIR1976 SC 667 , 1976 Lablc474 , (1976 )II LLJ377 SC , (1976 )2 SCC1 , [1976 ]3 SCR360 , 1976 (8 )UJ260 (SC ), the Supreme Court has held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and the right of a Government servant to receive it is property under Article 31 (1) and the State can not withhold the same by a mere executive order and such an order can not be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Thus, in our considered view the letter issued to the petitioner withholding his pension is not in consonance of Rule 8 (1) (b) and (2) of the Rules and is also violative of the principles of natural justice. ( 6. ) IN the circumstances, we set aside the said letter dated 17-11-1999 and the order of the Tribunal with liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders about withholding the petitioners pension in terms of Rule 8 (1) (b) and (2) of the Rules, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ( 7. ) WITH the liberty as aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.