Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 593 (KER)

State Of Kerala v. K K Jose,S/o K A Kurian

2025-03-14

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, P.KRISHNA KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Government servant can be denied interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits when a vigilance case is registered against him regarding affairs unrelated to his service in the Government. 2. The respondent retired from the police service as a Sub Inspector on 31/07/2017. He was an office bearer of the Kerala Police Association and its official magazine, Kaval Kairali. The Kerala Police Association was formed based on the permission granted by the Government in the year 1979. It is neither a State agency nor does the Government have any decisive role in its affairs. Based on a complaint made by the newly elected office bearers, an FIR was registered on 09/03/2016 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, against the respondent. The allegations in the FIR were in regard to the misappropriation of the funds of the Association. A final report dated 09/01/2020 was submitted before the Vigilance Court. In the report, it was stated that the allegations are unsubstantiated. It was also stated that the Association is an independent body and does not receive any financial assistance from the Police Department or the Government. Furthermore, it was asserted that the office bearers of the Association and Kaval Kairali would not come under the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1958. The final report was accepted by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and an order was passed on 12/06/2020 closing all the further proceedings in the above case. Subsequently, the Accountant General sanctioned the respondent’s pensionary benefits on 01/12/2020. 3. Since the respondent was not paid interest on the pension withheld, he approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal ordered payment of interest at the rate of 7% from 01/01/2018 till the date of payment of pensionary benefits. This order is challenged by the State before this Court in this Original Petition. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader, Shri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, and the learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Raju Sebastian. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since there was a criminal case registered by the Special Investigation Unit-I, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, the Government was justified in not releasing the pensionary benefits during the period of the vigilance case. Heard the learned Government Pleader, Shri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, and the learned counsel for the respondent, Shri Raju Sebastian. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since there was a criminal case registered by the Special Investigation Unit-I, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, the Government was justified in not releasing the pensionary benefits during the period of the vigilance case. It was further submitted that under Rules 3 and 3A of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules , the Government is entitled to recover the loss suffered from the pensionary benefits and therefore, the Government is justified in withholding the pensionary benefits till the conclusion of the vigilance case. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, Local Self Government Department and Others v. K. Chandran [ 2022 (2) KHC 523 ] and Chief General Manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Manilal Patel and Another , [(2019) 14 SCC 232]. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Government withheld the pensionary benefits for no reason and the cases relied on by the learned Government Pleader pertain to Government affairs. The Police Association is a private entity and cannot be considered a Government agency; therefore, its office bearers are not public servants. It was submitted that arbitrary withholding of pension creates a corresponding right for the Government servant to demand interest on the delayed pensionary benefits. 7. Under Rule 3 of Part III KSR, the Government has the authority to withhold or withdraw a pension, either permanently or for a specified period, if it determines that a pecuniary loss has been sustained due to the pensioner’s grave misconduct or negligence established in departmental or judicial proceedings. Further, Rule 3A of Part III KSR allows the Government to grant a provisional pension to a retired employee while the departmental or judicial proceedings are pending. These rules specifically refer to two types of proceedings—departmental and judicial—which must be related to the affairs of the Government. If departmental proceedings are initiated, no doubt, the Government has the authority to withhold pension. However, if judicial proceedings are initiated against a Government servant for matters entirely unrelated to their service, the pension cannot be withheld under these rules unless proceedings are concluded before his superannuation. If departmental proceedings are initiated, no doubt, the Government has the authority to withhold pension. However, if judicial proceedings are initiated against a Government servant for matters entirely unrelated to their service, the pension cannot be withheld under these rules unless proceedings are concluded before his superannuation. Under Rule 59(b) of Part III KSR, the Government is empowered to reduce pensions, as it may think proper, if the service of a Government servant has not been thoroughly satisfactory. This satisfaction can be made by the Government only before superannuation and not after the age of superannuation. Rule 3 and Rule 3A read with Rule 59 make it clear that the provisions above do not contemplate withholding pension due to judicial proceedings unrelated to the individual’s official role, if it is not concluded before his superannuation. 8. On the same set of allegations that were investigated by the vigilance team, departmental proceedings could have been initiated, as these allegations would amount to misconduct. However, judicial proceedings in this case based on the same allegations stand on a different footing, as they do not impact a Government servant’s regular duties and responsibilities. Departmental proceedings can be initiated against Government employees not only for misconduct in their official duties but also for failing to uphold the standards of conduct expected of public servants. Furthermore, action can be taken against a Government servant during their tenure if they are convicted in judicial proceedings, even if the case is unrelated to their official duties. However, such action is only possible while the individual remains in service. Therefore, in judicial proceedings unrelated to Government affairs, if the case remains inconclusive beyond the tenure of a Government servant, the Government cannot withhold pensionary benefits on the grounds of pending judicial proceedings. 9. In this case, no departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent. The final report of the vigilance investigation clarified that the Kerala Police Association is not a State agency and that, its office bearers are not public servants. This suggests that the Government did not properly assess the legal grounds for withholding the respondent’s pension. The judgments cited by the learned Government Pleader pertain to cases where pension was withheld due to departmental or judicial proceedings directly linked to a public servant’s official duties, which is not applicable in this instance. 10. This suggests that the Government did not properly assess the legal grounds for withholding the respondent’s pension. The judgments cited by the learned Government Pleader pertain to cases where pension was withheld due to departmental or judicial proceedings directly linked to a public servant’s official duties, which is not applicable in this instance. 10. To summarize the legal position: i) Pensionary benefits can be withheld during the pendency of departmental proceedings. ii) Pensionary benefits can be withheld during judicial proceedings concerning allegations related to Government affairs. iii) Pensionary benefits can be withheld in cases of judicial proceedings unrelated to Government affairs, provided that such proceedings conclude during the employee’s tenure and the Government is competent to initiate departmental action based on the judicial outcome. iv) Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld after retirement on the grounds of pending judicial proceedings unrelated to Government affairs, as no departmental proceedings can be initiated post-retirement, and the Government loses the authority to assess service satisfaction under Rule 59 of Part III KSR, once the employee has superannuated. 11. The Apex Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another , [ (2013) 12 SCC 210 ] has reiterated that pension is a hard-earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property” and it cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Deprivation of pension without any justifiable reason should be visited with consequences of payment of interest for the delayed payment. There was no justification for withholding the pension in this case for the reason stated above. Thus, the Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.