Regular Second Appeal No. 2317 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2317 of 1987 Date of decision: 23.04.2010 Punjab State ...Appellant Versus Bansi Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The issue involved and adjudicated in the present Regular Second Appeal is regarding the right of a person for granting him benefit of gratuity and pension upon his conviction by the Court for criminal offence after his superannuation. The respondent-plaintiff had retired as Headmaster of the government School, Amritsar on 29.02.1972. As claimed by him, false case was registered against him after his retirement for which he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate. He filed an appeal against the same judgment but his conviction was upheld. On the basis of his conviction, the pension and gratuity payable to the respondent-plaintiff was withheld and not released on the ground of conviction for a criminal offence. He accordingly filed a suit to challenge the action of the appellant-State in not paying pension and for not releasing the gratuity. In response, the appellant-State raised preliminary objection saying that the suit was not maintainable and was Regular Second Appeal No. 2317 of 1987 2 premature. It was pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff had not exhausted all the remedies that are available before him. The suit was also said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merit, it was pleaded that as per Rule 2.2.A of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, Vol. II (hereinafter referred to 'Rules') cut could be imposed on the pension on the basis of conviction for a criminal offence. The parties went to the suit on the following issues:- i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? OPP. ii) Whether defendants are entitled to deduct any amount from the pension and gratuity amount payable to the plaintiff?OPD. iii)Relief. The suit was decreed by the trial Court against which the appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Reliance placed by the appellant-State on Rule 2.2(A) referred to above was analysed by the courts and was held not applicable even remotely. In the reply filed, the appellant-State had relied upon the provisions of Rule 2.2.A of the rules, which was found not attracted as dealing with retiring government employees, who were on deputation with the Central Government or with the State Government or on foreign service. It appears that the appellant-State perhaps intending to make reference to Rule 2.2. (a). This was also found to be of no avail as it was not pleaded in defence. The observation made by the First Appellate Court that this rule apply to those cases where future misconduct after retirement is an issue Regular Second Appeal No. 2317 of 1987 3 apparently was not considered in a correct perspective. The conviction of the respondent-plaintiff was after his retirement. Perusal of Rule 2.2 (a) would show that future good conduct is an implied condition of grant of pension. This rule, however, leaves a liberty with the Government to withhold or withdraw pension or any part or if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or guilty of grave misconduct. In case of conviction of the serious offence of the pensioner, the action is required to be taken in the light of judgment of the Court relating to the conviction. The expression serious crime apparently has also been defined in the explanation. The requirement of following the principle of natural justice for passing an order under this provision is inherent and is so specifically provided under the rules. It is stated that if Government consider the appellant to be prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order serve upon the appellant a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the grounds on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit within a time specified, whatever he may wish to state against the proposed action. Future good conduct is one of the condition essential for right to continuously receive pension even if the pension is granted. It may not thus possible to say that Rule 2.2 (a) was not attracted. However, this rule was not so pleaded. The record also does not show if the action was taken against the respondent-plaintiff on the basis of this rule. Once a right had accrued to the respondent- plaintiff to receive pension upon his superannuation then this could have been discontinued only after following the procedure as given in Regular Second Appeal No. 2317 of 1987 4 Rule 2.2 (a). Learned State counsel has not been able to show if any opportunity was afforded to the respondent-plaintiff before holding him dis-entitled to the grant of pension and gratuity. Even if it is held that Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab CSR was applicable, it is not shown to have been relied upon and followed. This is a case where the respondent-plaintiff had retired in the year 1972. He accordingly has continued to receive his pension and apparently was paid gratuity long ago. At this belated stage, no case for interference would be made out, in view of violation of the procedural requirement as given in Rule 2.2 (a). April 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE