Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 299 (JK)

S. P. Gupta v. N. I. C.

2009-06-05

SUNIL HALI

body2009
1. The petitioner was facing judicial and departmental proceedings in respect of alleged misconduct. It was revealed that the petitioner released an amount of Rs.2.00 lac on account of payment of fire insurance claim against a Unit which was not in existence. The allegations against the petitioner were that while working as Divisional Manager, Hoshiarpur Division, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and settled a fraudulent claim of Rs.7,02,873/- and in the process he caused financial loss to the Company by allowing on account payment of Rs.2.00 lacs by exceeding his financial authority. The resultant effect was that he was charge sheeted on 23.02.1998. The inquiry was initiated against the petitioner which resulted in passing of order dated 27.05.2002, which is impugned in this writ petition. The punishment awarded was the withdrawal of pension permanently. 2. It is important to note that simultaneously an FIR was lodged against the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Patiala (Punjab). The petitioner stood convicted and punishment of two years of Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- came to be imposed upon him. It is stated that against this order of conviction, he filed appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Harayana at Chandigrarh, wherein the sentence awarded to the petitioner was stayed. It is important to note that conviction has not been stayed by the said High Court. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 27.05.2002 passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is important to note that the petitioner has already been retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1998. Therefore, the major penalty as contemplated under Rule 23 of the General Insurance (CDA) Rules, 1995 could not be imposed upon him. The major penalty includes removal/dismissal from services or reduction to lower rank or compulsory retirement. Such punishment can be imposed against an Officer who is in service. It is stated that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(A) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act 1972 , the Central Government makes General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Scheme of 1995"). Such punishment can be imposed against an Officer who is in service. It is stated that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17(A) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act 1972 , the Central Government makes General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Scheme of 1995"). Under Rules 45 and 47 of the Pension Scheme (supra), the Company is well within its right to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and order recovery from pension of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation or a Company, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. By invoking this provision, the respondents have permanently withheld the pension of the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing impugned order, the respondents have relied upon the decision given by the Special Judge, Patiala who has convicted the petitioner. It is stated that such course could not be resorted by the respondents while imposing punishment. 7. As already discussed hereinabove, the Corporation is well within its right to withhold or withdraw a pension wholly or part thereof in case pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service by the criminal court or any departmental proceedings. Rule 42 of the Pension Scheme (supra) provides that the competent authority may by order in writing, withhold or withdraw pension or a part thereof permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime and or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Rules 43 and 44 of the Pension Scheme (supra) clearly stipulate that the action against the pensioner can be taken both in case of conviction by criminal court or guilty of grave misconduct in the departmental proceedings. 8. Applying the aforesaid provisions in the present case, it is clearly revealed that the petitioner has been convicted by the criminal court to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh against the order of the Special Judge, Patiala, but the order of conviction has not been stayed. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh against the order of the Special Judge, Patiala, but the order of conviction has not been stayed. Applying the present provision of the law discussed hereinabove, the respondents were well within their right to withhold the pension of the petitioner permanently by invoking the provisions of Rules 42 and 47 of the Pension Scheme of 1995. It seems that the present order has been passed taking into consideration the inquiry conducted under the Conduct Rules as well as order of conviction recorded by the criminal court. This action has been taken strictly in consonance with the provisions of Rules 42 and 44 of the Pension Scheme (supra), which empowers the respondents to withhold the pension of the petitioner permanently. The conviction recorded by the trial court is sufficient to attract the provisions for withholding pension permanently. 9. I, therefore, find no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. The order of conviction recorded by the criminal court was itself a ground to withdraw the pension of the petitioner permanently by invoking the relevant provisions of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995. 10. In view of the above, I find no force in this petition, the same is dismissed along with connected CMP(s).