CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2989 OF 2008 (Against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1995 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna) 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POST, DAK BHAWAN, PATEL CHOWK, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR POSTAL SERVICES (H.Q.) O/O C.P.M.G. BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 5. SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA-4 ………. ….. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS. VERSUS R.N.PANDIT, SON OF LATE JUDAGI PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JALALPUR, P.O. NURSARAI, DISTRICT-NALANDA, EX- ASSISTANT, SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. ……………… APPLICANT/RESPONDNENT For Union of India : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Central Govt. Counsel. For The Respondents :Mr. M.P. Dixit, advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Shiva Kirti Singh & Hemant Kumar Srivastava, JJ. Heard the parties. 2. Union of India through the Director General, Department of Post, New Delhi and other officials of the Postal Department have preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 28.07.1995 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna whereby the 2 learned tribunal has allowed O.A. No. 499 of 2004 preferred by the sole respondent. 3. The aforesaid O.A. No. 499 of 2004 was preferred raising a grievance that pension of the applicant was not being finalized, gratuity was not being paid and commutation of pension was not being finalized on account of pendency of a criminal case. The learned tribunal noticed the important facts, such as no departmental action against the applicant till he retired in 2003 from the post of Assistant under the Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna G.P.O. and that the incident leading to criminal case had taken place in the year, 1994. The tribunal accepted the submission that the Govt. had nothing to do with the criminal case pending against the applicant and on that basis held that rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1974 would not be attracted. Accordingly, the O.A. was allowed and a direction was issued for payment of entire retiral dues within two months. 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the tribunal ought to have taken note of the fact that the criminal case had already concluded about three months prior to the impugned order leading to conviction of the applicant vide judgment and order dated 27th April, 2005 passed by the Special Judge (CBI), South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 02 of 1994 and R.C. No. 1(A) of 1994. It has further been submitted that the 3 conviction was for offences u/Ss 120B of the IPC/section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act also. It was further submitted that considering the nature of the case in which the applicant has been convicted, it was not correct for the tribunal to hold that the Government had nothing to do with the criminal case and, therefore, rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules will not have any application. Reliance was placed upon rule 9 of the aforesaid Pension Rules to highlight that the competent authority has been given right to withhold either in full or part pension or gratuity if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, further developments have also taken place in respect of pension to the respondent inasmuch as the concerned authority has issued office memorandum dated 24th August 2006 giving an opportunity of making a representation to the respondent as to why an order be not issued to withhold full pension and entire gratuity payable to him. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the action of the petitioners and the concerned authority are not fair inasmuch as the proceeding 4 against the respondent who has retired from service in 2003 is only with a view to adversely affect his pension whereas another employee of the Postal Department , Sri Tarun Kumar Verma who was also convicted alongwith the respondent in the same criminal case, has been let off with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service which entitles him to receive full pensionary benefit admissible to him. 7. We find some merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the learned tribunal was wrong in holding that the Government has nothing to do with the criminal case. We have perused the judgment of the criminal court leading to conviction of the respondent and on such perusal, we are prima facie of the view that the charge of illegal gratification was framed against the respondent for acts committed by him while in office and hence, it cannot be said that the Government has nothing to do with that case which was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has ended in conviction. No doubt, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, an appeal against that judgment of conviction has been preferred and the same has been admitted and is pending for hearing. 8. In view of our aforesaid discussion and in view of the fact that learned tribunal failed to take notice of an 5 important fact that the respondent has already been convicted, we are of the view that relevant provisions of CCS (Pension) rules and the subsequent developments require further consideration. We are therefore constrained to interfere in the matter. The impugned order passed by the tribunal contained in Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned tribunal for deciding the relevant issue afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to bring on record the subsequent developments. 9. The respondent-applicant would be at liberty to challenge any further order if passed against him. We are making it clear that we have not given any definite findings against either of the parties and the matter shall be decided by the tribunal on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Patna High Court the 17th day of August, 2010 NAFR/AKV/- (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)