f s<x Q03 CD B:h:!!:Ni! iiriiit ii IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGASH W.P. N0. 2-<2-22-./2004 PETITIONER Bhanuratn Sahu, Aged about 60 years, S/o. Manbodhiratn Sahu, R/o. Vfflage Bfflpta, P.A. Mohdi, Tahsfl — Kurud, Distt. Dhajmtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ..< ^^s^ ^s^e ^s^^ ^yy ^•^ ,•>«' 1] 2] 3] 1] State ofChhatrisgarh Tlirough: Secret'ary, Department ofForest, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] Additiooal Foiest Officer, Dhsimtari, Distfc Dhaffltafl (C.G) 3] Forest Conser»ator,Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4] Accountant General, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRTT PETECIONUNDERARTICLE 226/227 OP THE coNSTmnioN OF INDIA PARTICUIARS OF THE PETmONER (S): As stated aboye in the cause title. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT (S): As stated above in the cause tide. PASTICIILA^ OF THE ORDER(S) AJGAINST. WHM3H THIS PETmONIS MADE. 'u'^ Ui XI-HC-22 >3fl^r^ii.. R-<i?b ST^I sfrt-fw *)?^a 8N •¥5g'':2TRiRT;f,'^ifePi?. fani'y^ STI^'XR^? / ^ i^^^S^.t^S MWvn4>W*"vr """ 1""^^ 200 '"fsre^T"""""""""""" " 311^1 TOITW ^lft^ tHat 1-2-2006 ' Shri Manoj Paranjpe, coun^e Shri Sandeep Dubey, Govt.| Shri S.K; Beriwal.counsei 'Mearo. , By this petition uhder Articl the petitionerchailengesthe the Divisional Forest Omcer, : as the order of grant of gratuity ha$ Learned counsel for the p|e 7/2/2003 hasbeen passed by thej the ground that the appeal is acquittal. It isfurthersubmitted: orrencepunishabie underSection^ of the prevehtion ofGorruption Acf judgment and order dated submitted that afterthejudgment/fr dated 8/11QOOO waS revoked by ana it was directeel at since the i his pension case be finaiized and the pension of the petitioner was fi|'i since inen ne was getting pensionj Leamea counsel for the pe( of acquittai, an appeal was and as such the impugned ordet- , Forest Ofncer on 7/2/'2003 wherebfr eifQrthepetitioner. Adv. for respondents no.1 to 3. respondent No. 4. 23/8/2002 judgmenVt>rder preferfed <*l*lfl-i41-l TTO^f 4ft^ <Fa|^j<. ^3iPgH3ii^r ftir |e 226/227 oftheConstitution of India, ordef|dated 7/2/2003 (Annex:P/T)Rassedby uhaititaFi whereby the pensibn order as well ibeen canceiied. V • pletition^r submits thaf the order dated Divisional Forest QfRcer, Dhamtari on peiiiding adjudjcation agginst the order of ths petitioner was prosecuted ror affi 7 anci 31 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) ; Snd was acquitted ofthe charges viae passed bythetrial court: it is also of acquittal, the syspension order {he authority on 25®Q002(Annex.P/3) rtetitidner nas been retired on 30/6ff002 (he.pension be paid to him. Tnereafter, fil'iaiizedon 21/10/2002 (Annex,P/5)and titipner stated that the against tha order |iea tiythe State before ttie Migh Gourt t- has been passed by the Divisional 'thepensionorderasv^liastheorcier' [:S@^3^[ w XI-HC-22 'ssi .^|<<|cN. Sttlwie, fawi^'y. SD^I^t fc-li.sb Sf^! Sf^-T 'W?cT ^^ <n<WI SbNlcb tcj^^liT' ?i^t 'S:RIIW 'H^T -^- lei ot grant of gratuity nas been penslon. ; Leamed counsel forthe C.G. Civii Serviees (Pension) Ru| can be withnekl only in a case wh< for serious crime. He contend4d acquitted and reinstateci, he is gratuity; it is submitted tnat the ridh' in a- Government servant. He py( Apex Court in the case of Deokini caniteiled and now the petitioner is without p^titioner Teferred to Rute-8 and 9 ofthe les, 1976 and stated that the psnsion ireby the empioyee has been convicted that-once the petitjoner has been intitied fbr the pension and grant of la pehsion is a vaiuable, right vesting (ced reiiance upon the judgmeht of thS dnanaan_Prasay vs. The State of Bihar riitht and others ('AIR 1971 SO 1409) (fparas 30, 32 & 34), wherein it has been held as under: "30. The -grant of pensior^ o'der be'ng passed by ej may beffiiai for the purpo^ ha'ving regardmg to penod^ matters, may fce flcpess^ an orcter to that ef^ct, bu<\ itows te ff?e offica' emplo^ order bw by viftue ofQie 32. Pension is npt a bouh'ty and pSeasure of STS G6ve'\ii hand, ffte rigntto pension i\ Govwnment sefvant, 34. Rightto recen®jDensKJff 31(1} and by-a mereeisc^ pouvermwithholdaie'sarr^. alsq properfy undRKArycle sub-SfScie (Sf^af KiSeSe li weiibe isstled tomeState o/.w?S peWoner fbr pay"^nt iaw."i:.:.:1.,^ :;...:•' c(il<4ld-ii1'1 ^TR^f '4 t^?t <P*l^t< iTsifiiTT sa^r. Y does not depend upon an autftoffes to iat effect. !f ^sofquanmyingthe arnount 6f se-Ni.ee and offiier- attieeS ^ry forthe auftonfes to pass aw ngbt to receive pensioh jfga fvyt beGause of STS sajd Rttfes. payabte on the sweetwiii 'im'snt and thst on the othsr avaiuassie right vesting in a ys a pfopeny tmder Arv'cie [ffjuQ of^sr~th& Stais hass no Similariy^me ^aidclaimjs ^9tt) »nditisiwfsswd hv j4 writ bf rtiandsirius can iproperly consider Weclairii 6f pefson acfonSQg te ,[^W^f^ M XI-HC-22 -rg •qiqRra, •^ftiOTS..1^?ire3? ^^^^^ iiKCTiwirai "V^ 2W 'fe^ST' sn^i ^i h-fi'h 3D§?I ^*iicti ^tfsd <*l''<Ift'i1-l •4|t4<"ii'?'fSTSi. <Fn<$K •^aiPaitan^i Learned eounsel forthep^ judgment of the Apex Court jn Sinfln_reported in 2004i"11 SCC the titioner furtherplaced reiiance upon the the case of Union of india vs. Jaibal i21 ahd the judgmerit of Gujarat High Gourt in the case of Mukesh Kulmar Premsharikar Joshi vs: State of Guiarat and another reported in | heldthat it Is requirea to be notedl at present, np departmentai enqu| of the matter, there 1s abso|uteiy not to reinstate the petitioner b; submitted that in the. present cas< he has been retired. It is furthet petitioner was revokeci anci his p^r getting pension. Surprisingiy, by| as weil as the prder of grarit of gr^ of pendency of the appeai. It ii snquiry is pending agairist hin|i department to continue further appeal against the order of acqu|ttal settled prineiple of law that if pr<| acquiital of the persQn concerh) department itseif, perhaps differenl Reiiance isalso piaced yF>oti cass of S.S. Marwah vs. tlnion 2004 LAB.I.C.271 wherein it has been tnat the petitjoner is acquitted and even |ry is pendjng against him. in that view lo justinable reasdn for the Department revoking the suspension order. it is thepetitioner wsis acquitted and even sybmitted that the suspension- of the feflsion eage was finalized^and he was |the impugned order, ,his pension order Ituity has been canceiied on the ground also submitted that no departmental I, therefore, it is not open for the jction. in view of fiiing of the criminal It is further submitted that it is a ((secution, which yitimateiy resuited 'in ^d was at the behest pf or by the Gonsiderations mayarise. tHejudgmentoftheApexCourtjnthe jofjnaia reported in 1994 SCC tL&Sl 1077. it is contehded that after tibe implemented prosecution was lauhched brcier or compylsory retirement was against the person on! account wheracif his pension was reducea and rns grafuit'sfiwas wiftf'ioid;j3gt)^ing {'^''i'Ns XI-HC-22 -ssg •qT?fl?fz(,'g€teiIS,1«t<llWj.< 077 WWI fl»HI<»l I^^I' afl^i'^r Ft-ii'fi an^i 5t)+li°ti •<r(f?tT <=h^ii<rt^vt ^ww "Pf f^1^ ^^K ^aifigtfsn^i disposaiof the prosecution. In th$ said case, the person was acquitted of the charges anci me direction wa^ issued t6 the respondents to'consider thegrant/refease of pension and dratyity as admissible ynder ruies toany ofncer CQmpulsoriiy retired within t period of four monfhs. „ Leamed counsel for tiie $tate 6n th& other contended that the penaencyof criminal appeal agairl On perusai of the record, | prQsecuted for an offence punish^ble under Sections 7 and31(1)(d) read with Sectipn 13(2) of the Preventi petitioner has been retired on 3 and the pension be pajd to him. was finalized and since then he order of grant of gratuity has bel st the petitioner is cohtinuation of trial. it is borne out thatthe petitioner was on'of Corruption Act and was acquitted of the charges and after the juddment/order of acquittal, the suspension oraer.-was revoked by the authotrity and it was directed that since the ?/6^002 his,Rension case be finaljzed ^hereafter, the pension of the petitioner ^as getting pension. Surprisingly, vide the impugned order dated 7/2/2pQ3, the pension order as well as the ^n canceiied ang now the petitioner is witnoutpensiori. This Court, relying upon t^e clecisions.in the cases w union or india vs. JaiRalSihah repoitediili 2004(1) SCC 121 and MuKesiLKymar Premshankar Joshi vs. Stateof Guiarat and another reported in 2004 LAB.I.C.271, disposed of Wr|t Petition No.122(M2001 (Bahwarijal S^rivastaya vs. State) vide oraei|ciated 14/7/2004, whereinitnasbeen heldasunder ' 1 . > ; "1-iaving considemd i° fecte and ciivumstQnce, j the materiaf on f'scbf'd ^ftd\ ih uiew of the -afQresaJd judgments, it is dirs;^ ffiat uworster of saspensori ofacquttal of 6 ffetiVtiner. is revoked^mn w dy Sji^ 1^ ^ff^Qne^^ivass wspencSed ^ r7 fjf tt <d he:h ttie &S^fN {jwfiwif^y -ff? ^/Hfflf/C*/ "fcCtOC CIM XI-HC-22 an^i'ECT ft'ii'* an^ ww^ ^fi^ H/- ^'II ^ ^eg '-qrai?pi, ^tfly'ito, &fii'My anitg-1?^? 078 sii^i ^gtgr glfel ^- acgtiitted, he is et fiwmthedate ofec^y Maving considered the on record ahd in view of the order dated 7/2/2003 (Annex. regardina canGellation of the /-.•••.'. ..:.•• •• . . . . .. .^ •,. asidewith costs. AccordinQlv, the Detttion ^i^f^T^fi'r HI^<^ ^f 'f^zt ^T^H ^sipgiisn^i Wtled for ConsGifi^nSal benefits uitfal." /'.:: • '. •- ' •' Ifacts and cffcumstences and the material 1 law laid down in theaforesaid cases, the IR/7), so far as is relat^ td the petitioner bension as well as grant of gratuity is set eertified copy as oer rullss. slandsdjsDose(fof. 1. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge V. [tfr^ ^Ra^