Gore Lal v. State of Punjab and Others

IN T

Gore Lal

State of Punjab a

CORAM: HO

*** Present : Mr. Ms. *** AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pray dated 29.12.201 petitioner have b

2.

The as the same has Punjab and oth on all fours, whi controvert regard the aforemention read thus:-

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR

CW

Dat

Versus

and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN ** Prateek Pandit, Advocate for th Shruti, AAG, Punjab. ** DHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition 7 vide which provisional pens been stopped. e issue involved in the present p s been decided by this Court in hers, CWP-22174-2015, on 19.1 ich learned State counsel despite ds the factual position and draw ned judgment or cite any contra "The argument which has the respondents has already while deciding CWP No.

01.12.2018. In the said case a after the conviction of an em as raised by the counsel for case of departmental inquiry, more than 1/3rd pension h considered and negatived. Re

JAB & HARYANA RH WP-9905-2022 (O&M) te of decision: 23.01.2025

...Petitioner

...Respondents N CHAUDHARY he petitioner. n is for setting aside the order sion/pensionary benefits of the petition is no longer res integra n Darshan Singh vs. State of

2.2018, covers the present case e best efforts has been unable to w out any distinctive aspects in ary law, relevant paras whereof been raised by the counsel for been considered by this Court 24736 of 2017 decided on also, 100% pension was stopped mployee and the same argument, the State that it is only in the , the sealing of not withholding has been imposed, has been

as under: "In order to appreciate the co by the respective counsel, R Services Rules, Vol.II needs t

2.2 Recoveries from conduct is an implied conditi The Government reserve withholding or withdrawing a pensioner be convicted of ser misconduct.

In a case where a pens crime, action shall be taken the court relating to such con by the preceding paragraph, that the pensioner is prima fa it shall before passing an orde

(i) serve upon the pensioner proposed to be taken against it is proposed to be taken an within sixteen days of the further time not exceeding fi by the pension sanctioning au he may wish to make against

(ii) take into consideration submitted by the pensioner un Where a part of pension i amount of such part of pens one-third of the pension orig amount of pension left to reduced to less than three tho month, having regard to th amount of the pension left would be adequate for his ma

In a case where an ord be passed by the Gove Commission shall be consu passed."

A bare perusal of the power to the competent auth states that a future good con every grant of a pension an themselves the right to withh any part of it if the pensioner or to be guilty of a grave m said, the Rule 2.2 (a) state convicted of a serious crime, light of the judgment of conviction.

ontention which has been raised Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil to be reproduced herein:- m pensions.–(a) Future good ion of every grant of a pension. to themselves the right of a pension or any part of it if the rious crime or be guilty of grave sioner is convicted of a serious in the light of the judgment of nviction. In a case not covered , if the Government considers acie guilty of grave misconduct, er,– r a notice specifying the action him and the grounds on which nd calling upon him to submit, receipt of the notice or such ifteen days, as may be allowed uthority, such representation as the proposal; and n the representation, if any, nder sub-clause (i). is withheld or withdrawn the ion shall not ordinarily exceed ginally sanctioned nor shall the the pensioner be ordinarily ousand five hundred rupees per he consideration whether the to the pensioner, in any case, aintenance. der under clause (i) above is to rnment, the Public Service ulted before the final order is Rule 2.2 (a), which gives the hority to withhold the pension duct is an implied condition of nd the government reserve to hold or withdraw the pension or r is convicted of a serious crime misconduct. After noticing the es that where a pensioner is the action is to be taken in the

In the next paragraph, Rule 2.2 (a) that in case a p conviction then the Governm a pensioner is guilty of a pri case authorities find that misconduct after granting du concerned pensioner and afte filed, the decision can be arr to be taken against the pensio

After noticing the abo power which has been given pass an appropriate order of w amount of such part of pens exceed 1/3rd of the pension the amount of pension lef ordinarily reduced to less tha done so that a pensioner in an for his/her maintenance.

The interpretation w forwarded that in case of co right to withhold full pension reading of the Rules. The pro given to withhold and a se applicable in the case of conv of Law as well as in the case decisions the department opportunity to the concer inquiry). Therefore, the distin create by the State counsel, is the Rule 2.2 (a). ''

Once the same argum State has already been cons cannot be accepted in the pre argument raised by the Stat withhold 100 % pension in ca

Furthermore, in the pre P-10) has been passed on which was issued to the peti clear from order (Annexure charge-sheet, which was issu duty, the officer passing Education Punjab notices the respect of FIR No.14 dated No.36 dated 23.05.1994. Tho order in respect of the charge being withheld on the basis o

At this stage, the coun that even if the interpretation

, it has been mentioned in the pensioner is not covered by the ment is to consider as to whether ma facie misconduct or not. In pensioner is guilty of grave ue opportunity of hearing to the er considering the reply, if any rived at as to what action needs oner. ove two situations, there is a n to the competent authority to withholding or withdrawing the sion which shall not ordinarily originally sanctioned nor shall ft to the pensioner shall be an Rs.3500/- per month. This is ny case has an adequate amount which the State counsel has onviction, the Government has n, is not borne out of the plain oviso where the power has been ealing has been fixed, is duly viction by the competent Court e of grave misconduct on which has to arrive at after due rned pensioner (departmental nction which is being sought to s not borne out of the reading of ment raised by the respondent-sidered and rejected, the same esent case as well and hence the te that the State has power to ase of conviction is rejected. esent case, the order (Annexure the basis of the charge-sheet, itioner on 05.10.2009, which is P-10). After noticing the said ued for remaining absent from the order i.e. the Director, e conviction of the petitioner in

17.02.1995 as well as the FIR ough the officer has passed an e-sheet but the actual pension is f the conviction. nsel for the petitioner points out n, which is being given by the

State counsel is to be accep where the order is passed on then only 1/3rd of the pe respondents in reply to parag mentioned that impugned ord conviction. Relevant reply of "14. That in reply to para N submitted that the contents denied. However, it is submi P-10 clearly shows that the p been withdrawn on account under Section 302/324 IPC petitioner has been withdr misconduct as future good co for getting pension."

A bare perusal of sam stand taken by the responden (Annexure P10) was passed n due to the grave misconduct the petitioner was issued Therefore, even as per th counsel, as the order was pas on the basis of grave miscon withhold more than 1/3rd Counsel for the respondents view of the stand taken, the reproduced hereinbefore.

Even otherwise, Rule 2 coordinate Bench of this Cou titled as Sardara Singh Vs. S order dated 05.04.2016, thi Rule 2.2 (a) in paragraph 7, the coordinate Bench that pen withheld in any case. The rele said judgment are as under: "7. In the written statement f on account of Rule 2.2(a) of t Vol-II Part-I [in short "Rule convicted by Court has no r his pension has rightly bee thus:- "2.2. Recoveries from pensio an implied condition of ev Government reserve to them or withdrawing a pension or a convicted of serious crime or In a case where a pensioner i action shall be taken in the lig

pted, though not accepted, that n the basis of grave misconduct ension can be withheld, the graph 14 of the writ petition has der is not passed on the basis of f para 14 is as under: No.14 of the writ petition it is of this para are wrong hence tted that a perusal of Annexure ension of the petitioner had not of his conviction and sentence C. In fact the pension of the rawn on the basis of grave onduct is an essential ingredient me would show that as per the nts before this Court, the order not on account of conviction but of remaining absent, for which charge-sheet on 05.10.2009. he interpretation of the State ssed in the case of the petitioner duct, the respondents could not of the pension in any case. s has no satisfactorily reply in respondents before this Court,

2.2 (a) has been interpreted by a urt in CWP No.16316 of 2012 tate of Punjab and others. Vide s Court after reproducing the a finding has been recorded by nsion more than 1/3rd cannot be evant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the filed, a plea has been taken that the Punjab Civil Services Rules

2.2(a)"], person who has been right to pension and, therefore, en stopped. Rule 2.2(a) reads ons.–(a) Future good conduct is very grant of a pension. The mselves the right of withholding any part of it if the pensioner be be guilty of grave misconduct. is convicted of a serious crime,

relating to such conviction. In a case not covered by th Government considers that guilty of grave misconduct, it

(i) serve upon the pensioner proposed to be taken against it is proposed to be taken an within sixteen days of the further time not exceeding fi by the pension sanctioning au he may wish to make against

(ii)take into consideration submitted by the pensioner un Where a part of pension i amount of such part of pens one-third of the pension orig amount of pension left to reduced to less than three tho month, having regard to th amount of the pension left would be adequate for his ma

¶8The above provision wou conduct of the government consideration. On account o action can be taken. How prescribed for ensuring that th and part of the pension ca normally exceed 1/3rd of the nor shall the amount of pen ordinarily reduced to less than

Therefore, it is clear already held that as per 2.2(a) not more that 1/3rd of the pe

Counsel for the respon Sardara Singh's case (su consideration the order pass LPA No.427 of 2013 dated interpreting Rule 2.2 (a) of P Division Bench had come pension cannot be withheld states that the said order was and, thereafter, while decidin Bench vide order dated 0 holding that 100% pension ca the facts, the case file of th summoned from where it tran allowed the LPA while interp to Punjab, which is being int

he preceding paragraph, if the the pensioner is prima facie t shall before passing an order,– r a notice specifying the action him and the grounds on which nd calling upon him to submit, receipt of the notice or such ifteen days, as may be allowed uthority, such representation as the proposal; and the representation, if any, nder sub-clause (i). is withheld or withdrawn the ion shall not ordinarily exceed ginally sanctioned nor shall the the pensioner be ordinarily ousand five hundred rupees per he consideration whether the to the pensioner, in any case, aintenance. uld go on to show that future t servant is to be taken into of conviction on serious crime, wever, safe guards have been the person can maintain himself an be withheld which cannot e pension originally sanctioned nsion left to the pensioner be n Rs.40 per month." that a coordinate Bench has ) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, ension granted can be withheld. ndents states that while deciding upra), the Court took into sed by the Division Bench in

12.11.2014 vide which while Punjab Civil Services Rule, the to the conclusion that 100% . Counsel for the respondents recalled by the Division Bench ng the same LPA, the Division

05.10.2016 allowed the LPA an be stopped. In order to verify he above mentioned LPA was nspires that the Division Bench preting Rule 2.2(a) as applicable

well on 12.11.2014. As Shan the State of Haryana, a rev ground that Rule 2.2 as appli different and there is no 1/3r Rule and, therefore, the orde be recalled. It was under the dated 12.11.2014 was recalle thereafter, while interpreting the State of Haryana, the LPA Even though the order date No.427 of 2013 was recalled Division Bench while inter applicable in the State of pension cannot be stopped. T learned Single Judge while inadvertently relied upon the be accepted.

Further more, withh exceeding 1/3rd is for a reas in Rule 2.2(a) itself. As per left with adequate amount for be said that the said clause person is found guilty o departmental inquiry but not a competent Court of Law cannot be differentiated by a of Law in case relating to given by the competent autho in the departmental proceedin

Therefore, the sealing w

(a) to not withhold more th sanctioned, will be duly appli a person has been held guilty and where a person has b misconduct in the departmen interpretation being extend respondents cannot be accept

In view of the above, th aside. The opportunity is giv fresh order in consonance w

(a), as interpreted by this noticed hereinbefore. The pre the above terms.

After the order is passe the respondents authority, i given above, whatever the petitioner is found entitled fo him from the date it was stop

nkar Lal's case was relating to view petition was filed on the cable in the State of Haryana is rd sealing provided in the said er dated 12.11.2014 is liable to se circumstances that the order ed by the Division Bench and, g the Rule 2.2 as applicable to A was dismissed on 05.10.2016. ed 12.11.2014 passed in LPA but it is a matter of fact that the rpreting the Rule 2.2 (a) as Punjab, also held that 100% Therefore, this argument that the deciding Sardara Singh's case order dated 12.11.2014 cannot holding of the pension not on which has been enumerated Rule 2.2(a) a person should be r his/her maintenance. It cannot will only applicable in case a of grave misconduct in the where a person is convicted by . Maintenance of a pensioner judgment of a competent Court criminal activity or a finding ority about a grave misconduct ngs. which has been put by Rule 2.2 han 1/3rd of pension originally icable in case of both i.e. where y by the Criminal Court of Law been held guilty of a grave ntal inquiry and, therefore, the ded by the counsel for the ed. he order (Annexure P-10) is set ven to the respondents to pass with the provisions of Rule 2.2 Court on earlier occasion as esent writ petition is allowed in ed, the fresh order is passed by in pursuance to the direction difference of the pension the or, the same will be released to

3.

The

23.01.2025 ashok

Wh

Wh

exercise be carried out of pa period of three months."

e petition is disposed of in terms

ether speaking

: ether reportable

:

assing the fresh order within a of Darshan Singh (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY)