http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALICHARAN MOHAPATRA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/09/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  684            1995 SCC  (6) 105  JT 1995 (7)   167        1995 SCALE  (5)506

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  is preferred  against the  judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Cuttack Bench) allowing the Original Application  filed by  the respondent and directing the appellants  (respondents in the Original Application) to release final  pension and gratuity to the respondent within ninety days of the judgment.      The respondent  was  a  member  of  the  Indian  Police Service. He  retired on  December 31, 1990. About six months prior to  his  retirement,  a  raid  was  conducted  on  his residential  premises.   On  the   basis  of   the  material recovered, a  prosecution has  been launched  against him in the Special  Court, Cuttack  under Section  13(2) read  with Section 13(1)  of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being in  possession  of  assets  disproportionate  to  his  known sources of  income. [According  to Section 13(1) of the said Act, misconduct  includes  being  in  possession  of  assets disproportionate to  his known  sources of income.] The case is still  pending. In  view of  the  pendency  of  the  said criminal case,  the appellants  withheld the gratuity amount and did not also sanction the pension finally. A provisional pension equal  to ninety  percent of  his  entitlement  was, however, sanctioned. Aggrieved by the refusal to release the gratuity amount  and the  refusal to  sanction  his  pension finally, the respondent approached the Tribunal.      The appellants  relied upon  Rule 6  of the  All  India Services  (Death-cum-Retirement  Benefits)  Rules,  1958  in support of  their action.  The appellants’  case was that in view of  the pendency  of the  said criminal case, they were justified in withholding the gratuity amount and also in not sanctioning the  pension finally. The Tribunal has held that the said  rule does not avail the appellants inasmuch as the charge  against   the  respondent  is  not  one  of  causing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

pecuniary  loss  to  the  Central  or  State  Government  by misconduct or negligence within the meaning of Rule 6(1). We are of  the opinion  that the  reading of  the rule  by  the Tribunal is  unsustainable and  incorrect.  The  rule  reads thus:      "6.  Recovery from  pension:-  6(1)  The      Central Government  reserves  to  itself      the right  of withholding or withdrawing      a pension  or any  part of  it,  whether      permanently or  for a  specified period,      and the  right of  ordering the recovery      from pension of the whole or part of any      pecuniary loss  caused to the Central or      a State  Government, if the pensioner is      found  in  a  departmental  or  judicial      proceedings to have been guilty of grave      misconduct or  to have  caused pecuniary      loss  to   the  Central   or   a   State      Government by  misconduct or negligence,      during his  service,  including  service      rendered    or    re-employment    after      retirement.           Provided that  no such  order shall      be passed  without consulting  the Union      Public Service Commission:--      Provided further that--      (a)  such  departmental  proceeding,  if      instituted while  the pensioner  was  in      service, whether  before his  retirement      or  during   his  re-employment,  shall,      after  the   final  retirement   of  the      pensioner, be  deemed to be a proceeding      under  this   sub-rule  and   shall   be      continued and concluded by the authority      by which  it was  commenced in  the same      manner as if the pensioner had continued      in service;      (b)  [Omitted as unnecessary]      (c)  [Omitted as unnecessary]      Explanation.- For  the purpose  of  this      rule:-      (a)  a departmental  proceeding shall be      deemed  to   be  instituted   which  the      charges framed against the pensioner are      issued to  his or, if he has been placed      under suspension  from an  earlier date,      on such date and      (b)  a  judicial   proceeding  shall  be      deemed to be instituted--           (i)  in  the   case   of   criminal           proceedings, on the date on which a           complaint is made or a charge-sheet           is  submitted,   to  the   criminal           court; and           (ii) in   the    case   of    civil           proceedings, on  the date  on which           the plaint  is presented or, as the           case  may  be,  an  application  is           made, to a civil court.      (2)  Where any  departmental or judicial      proceeding is  instituted under sub-rule      (1), or  where a departmental proceeding      is continued  under clause  (a)  of  the      proviso thereto  against an  officer who      has retired  on  attaining  the  age  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    compulsory retirement  or otherwise,  he      shall be  sanctioned by  the  Government      which   instituted   such   proceedings,      during the  period commencing  from  the      date of  his retirement  to the  date on      which,   upon    conclusion   of    such      proceeding final  orders are  passed,  a      provisional pension  not  exceeding  the      maximum pension  which would  have  been      admissible   on   the   basis   of   his      qualifying  service  upto  the  date  of      retirement,   or   if   he   was   under      suspension on  the date  of  retirement,      upto the  date immediately preceding the      date  on   which  he  was  placed  under      suspension; but  no gratuity  or  death-      cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to      him  until   the  conclusion   of   such      proceedings  and   the  issue  of  final      orders thereon.           Provided  that  where  disciplinary      proceeding has been instituted against a      member  of   the  Service   before   his      retirement service  under rule 10 of the      All  India   Service   (Discipline   and      Appeal) Rules, 1969, for imposing any of      the penalties  specified in  clause (i),      (ii) and (iv) of sub-rule 1 of rule 6 of      the  said   rules  and  continuing  such      proceeding under  sub-rule (1)  of  this      rule after  his retirement from service,      the payment  of gratuity  or  Death-cum-      Retirement   gratuity   shall   not   be      withheld. (3)  [Omitted as unnecessary]."      A reading  of sub-rule  (1) of  Rule  6  discloses  the following features:  (a) if  the pensioner  is  found  in  a departmental or  judicial proceeding  to have been guilty of grave misconduct  or (b)  where a  pensioner is  found in  a departmental or judicial proceeding to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government by his misconduct or negligence  during   his  service   (including  the  service rendered on re-employment after retirement), (c) the Central Government is  entitled to  withhold or  withdraw pension or any part  of it  whether  permanently  or  for  a  specified period. The  Central Government  is also  entitled to  order recovery from  pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Central or State Government. Sub-rule (2) says that (a) where a departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under sub-section (1) or (b) where a departmental proceeding is  continued under  clause (a) of the proviso to sub-rule (1),  (c) such  employee shall be sanctioned by the government which  instituted such  proceedings a provisional pension not  exceeding the maximum pension admissible to him during the period of pendency of such proceeding, (d) but no gratuity or  death-cum-retirement gratuity  shall be paid to him  until  the  conclusion  of  such  proceedings  and  the issuance of final orders thereon.      It is  thus clear from an analysis of sub-rules (1) and (2) that  where a  judicial proceeding  is pending against a pensioner for  grave misconduct,  the government is entitled to withhold gratuity amount and/or death-cum-gratuity amount and is also entitled to sanction provisional pension for the period of  pendency of  the  said  proceedings.  It  is  not necessary that  a judicial  proceeding should  relate to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

charge of  causing pecuniary  loss to  the Central  or State Government by  misconduct or  negligence during his service. Sub-rule (1)  of Rule  6 specifies  two grounds  upon  which action thereunder  can be  taken. One is where the pensioner is found  guilty of  grave misconduct and the other is where he is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central and State Government  by misconduct  and negligence  during  his service. Sub-rule  (2) provides for orders to be made during the pendency  of such  proceedings. It may also be mentioned that neither  the All  India Service  (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules nor the Pensions Act, General Clauses Act or the Leave Rules [referred  to in  Rule  2(2)]  define  the  expression "misconduct".  It   would,  therefore,   be  reasonable  and permissible to  understand the  said expression  in  Rule  6 aforesaid  in  the  manner  defined  in  the  Prevention  of Corruption Act.      The Tribunal  was, therefore,  in error in holding that unless the  charge  expressly  charges  the  pensioner  with causing pecuniary loss to Central or State Government by his negligence or  misconduct during  his  service,  the  action under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 cannot be taken.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.