THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 13570 of 2010 Dated: 22-11-2011 Between The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department, Hyderabad. …Petitioner And B.Gopala Krishna Murthy and another …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II for the petitioner and Sri N.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant. The writ petition is directed against the order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dated 7-7-2009 allowing O.A.No. 3967 of 2007 (filed by the respondent) setting aside the order of the writ petitioner-Government passed in G.O.Ms.No. 48, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 7-2-2007, whereby the penalty of withholding of pension and gratuity in full and permanently was imposed on the respondent. The parties herein are referred to for convenience as the applicant and respondent i.e., as arrayed in the O.A. before the Tribunal. The applicant was prosecuted for his conduct during his tenure as Administrative Officer in the District Medical and Health Officers during the period 4-11-1995 to 12-9-1998. He was arrayed as the first accused in C.C.No. 7 of 2001. After eventual trial the applicant was convicted and sentenced to Simple imprisonment for a period of one year besides a fine of Rs.500/-. Thereagainst he preferred an appeal to this Court and therein, by the order in Crl.MP.No. 724 of 2006 in Crl.A.No. 598 of 2006, interim suspension of the sentence imposed on the applicant, was ordered. As the conviction recorded by the Criminal Court subsisted, the respondent after due process passed orders in G.O.Ms.No. 48, dated 7-2-2007, withholding permanently and in full the pension and gratuity due and payable to the applicant. The Tribunal, by the order impugned, relying on an interlocutory order dated 05-02-2009 passed by this Court in WAMP No. 1287 of 2008 in WA No. 612 of 2008 directed, payment of provisional pension to the applicant but subject to the result of the criminal appeal preferred by him, and set aside the order passed in GOMs.No.48 dated 7-2- 2007. In para 8 of its order, the Tribunal observed that since the sentence imposed by the trial court on the applicant was suspended by the High Court in the interlocutory order in the appeal preferred by him, the judicial proceedings cannot be deemed to have concluded; the conviction does not become final and only when judicial proceedings have reached finality, the competent authority may pass an order recording withholding of the pension of the applicant. The Tribunal endeavoured to read Rules 8, 9 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 to buttress its conclusion that pendency of the appeal and grant of interim order therein suspending the sentence disables exercise of power, authority and jurisdiction of the employer (the State in this case) to an pass order withholding the applicant’s pension till the conviction recorded has become final after conclusion of the appeal. A learned Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P.Rajasekhar and others[1] has clearly ruled that the Disciplinary authority need not await the decision in an appeal/revision against a conviction; that a contrary view by the another learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 16102 of 2007 i s per in curium since it is at variance with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Dy.Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S.Nagoor Meera[2] and Union of India v. V.K.Bhaskar[3]. Even the interactive analysis by the learned Tribunal of Rules 8, 9 and 52 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, is erroneous. Rule 8 enumerates the statutory policy that pension is subject to future good conduct. Clause (b) thereof enjoins that the pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Rule 9 explicates the right of the Government to withhold or withdraw pension and set out the procedure therefor. Rule 52 is a provision dealing with Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceeding may be pending. Clause (b) of this Rule enjoins that provisional pension shall be paid by the Audit Officer/Head of Office during the period commencing from the date of retirement to the date on which, upon the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. The phraseology of Rule 52 discloses that provisional pension should be paid up to the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings. and final orders are passed consequently by the competent authority. It is clear that the order of the Criminal Court recording the conviction and imposing sentence is a complete and operative judicial verdict. It is not subject to ratification by the appellate authority. On the recording of a conviction by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the conviction operates proprio vigore and the mere interdiction of the sentence, by an interim order passed by the appellate Court (as in this case) does not operate to eclipse the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Since an order has legitimately been passed by the competent authority (the State Government) on the basis of the conviction recorded by the trial Court which as on date is operative proprio vigore, the order in G.O.Ms.No. 48, dated 7-2-2007 suffers from no infirmity warranting interdiction by the judicial branch. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Tribunal is fallacious, warrants interference and is accordingly set aside. Sri N.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent must review the order, withholding full pension and gratuity permanently imposed on the applicant in G.O.Ms.No. 48, dated 7-2-2007 in the event the applicant succeeds in the Criminal Appeal preferred by him. It is needless to mention that the respondent is obligated to reconsider the order passed in G.O.Ms.No. 48, dated 7-2- 2007, if so warranted, on the basis of the decision of the appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the applicant against the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court. In conclusion, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 7-7-2009 in O.A.No. 3967 of 2007 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 22nd November, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR [1] 2010 (1) ALD 595 (DB) [2] (1995) 3 SCC 377 [3] (1997) 11 SCC 383