Dismissed¶44

Mr B a Lakshman Kumar v. Union of India

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/6627/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withholding of entire monthly pension and gratuity of convicted retired central government employee; provisional pension; Rule 19(i) and Rule 9, CCS (CCA) Rules 1965; conviction in CBI bribery case; stay of sentence versus setting aside of conviction; pendency of criminal appeal no assistance; K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584; N.K. Suparna; K. Chandran; CAT Bengaluru OA No.170/00023/2021; WP No. 6627 of 2023 (S-CAT); Karnataka High Court; retiral benefits; disciplinary penalty post-conviction.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was rejected/dismissed as without merit and no costs were awarded. ¶44

Mr B a Lakshman Kumar Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was rejected/dismissed as without merit and no costs were awarded.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose conviction stands although the operation of his sentence is stayed, is entitled at least to provisional pension under Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rules despite the penalty of withholding of pension and gratuity. +2 more

¶38

Court's answer

The petitioner, having been convicted, was rightly imposed the penalty of withholding of pension, which includes gratuity; he is not entitled to at least provisional pension merely in view of Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Stay of sentence by the appellate court does not mean the conviction has been set aside; hence the pendency of the judicial proceedings/criminal appeal cannot assist the petitioner (consistent with K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh).

¶40

Key takeaways

Entitlement to pension including gratuity has to be in accordance with the Rules, and the Rules do not contemplate payment of pension/gratuity in these facts; the petitioner's ailments and need of money for treatment do not alter this.ratio¶44
The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the original application, and accordingly this Court rejects/dismisses the writ petition as being without any merit.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Division Bench: V. Kameswar Rao and S. Rachaiah, JJ.; oral order per V. Kameswar Rao, J.) dismisses W.P. No. 6627 of 2023 (S-CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a retired Superintendent of Central Excise/Customs who, after conviction in a bribery case (simple imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-), was penalised pursuant to a show-cause under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by order dated 09.11.2020 withholding his entire monthly pension and gratuity. Affirming the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench order in OA No.170/00023/2021 (described in the body as dated 09.12.2022; cause title records 06.12.2022), the Court holds: (i) a convicted pensioner gets no assistance from Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to claim at least provisional pension — the penalty of withholding pension, including gratuity, was rightly imposed; (ii) stay of sentence by the appellate court does not mean the conviction has been set aside, so pendency of the criminal appeal cannot assist him, consistent with K.C. Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh (2001) 6 SCC 584; and (iii) entitlement to pension including gratuity must be in accordance with the Rules, which do not contemplate payment on these facts, ailments and need of money for treatment notwithstanding. Writ petition rejected/dismissed; no costs.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 6627 OF 2023 (S-CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. B. A. LAKSHMAN KUMAR, S/O LATE SRI. M. ARASAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION-SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE (RETIRED), CHIKKI, 3944L, 17^TH ‘E’ CROSS, BSK II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 070.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HANJER RAGHAVENDRA BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally 1. UNION OF INDIA, signed by K G REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RENUKAMBA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Location: MINISTRY OF FINANCE, High Court of Karnataka NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶14

THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.D. VIJAYA HAVANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. V. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 170/00023/2021 (ANNEXURE-A), ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and

¶21

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶24

This writ petition has been filed by Sri. B.A.Lakshman

¶25

Kumar (petitioner) challenging the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in OA No.170/00023/2021, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the original application by stating in paragraphs No.21 and 22 as under:

¶26

“21. We are conscious about the decision of N.K.Suparna (supra), but in view of the judgment of Sareen's case (supra) an authoritative pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently followed by the other benches of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶28

CAT, we find it appropriate to consider the same as relevant for the disposal of the present OA. Similarly, the ratio of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Chandran's case supra would throw some light on the controversy involved herein albeit the issue of DCRG was involved therein. Since, only the operation of the sentence has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka not the conviction of the applicant, keeping the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sareen and K.Chandran's case (supra), the pendency of judicial proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court cannot come to the assistance of the applicant. The decision taken by the respondents being in conformity with the statutory provisions, no interference is warranted by this Tribunal.

¶29

22. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no merit in the application. Accordingly, stands dismissed. However, in the event of the applicant succeeding in the pending criminal appeal, the orders impugned needs re-consideration in as much as withholding of pension and gratuity as well as the other retiral benefits are concerned.”

¶30

The facts to be noted from the writ petition are,

¶31

the petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent of

¶32

Customs, Postal Appraisal Department, Museum Road, Bengaluru, was accused of demanding a bribe of

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶35

Rs.3,000/- on the complaint made by one Sri. Mueen Farooq Hussain regarding the international parcel, pursuant to which CBI enquiry was initiated. Suffice to state, he was convicted in the criminal case by the concerned Criminal Court which had directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. During the pendency of trial, on 31.03.2013, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. It may be stated here, during the pendency of trial after superannuation, he was being paid provisional pension. The conviction resulted in the respondents issuing a show-cause under Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1965 (‘CCS (CCA) Rules’ for short) as to why the penalty of withholding of entire amount of monthly pension, so also the gratuity be not imposed on him. The show-cause notice culminated in an order dated 09.11.2020, whereby the competent authority decided to

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶37

impose the aforesaid punishment. Suffice to state, in view of the penalty, the petitioner is not being paid pension, nor the gratuity. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal dismissing the OA.

¶38

The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner is, in view of Rule 9 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the petitioner is entitled to at least provisional pension. We are not in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason, the petitioner having been convicted, has been rightly imposed the penalty of withholding pension, which includes Gratuity.

¶39

The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶40

the stay of the sentence having been given by the Appellate Court, he is entitled to provisional pension is not appealing for the reason, the stay of sentence would not mean the conviction has been set aside. The Tribunal has rightly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

¶41

K.C.Sareen -Vs.- CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC

¶42

584] .

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1612-DB WP No. 6627 of 2023

¶44

The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from many ailments and requires money for treatment, is also not appealing for the reason that the entitlement to pension including the gratuity has to be in accordance with Rules. The Rules do not contemplate payment of pension/gratuity in the facts. We are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the OA. We also accordingly reject/dismiss the writ petition being without any merit.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶48

PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Mr B a Lakshman Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr B a Lakshman Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C v Revankar Vs State Bank of India

Sri. Muniyappa Vs Sri. Govindaraju

M/S Theos Metals Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kumaresh Nj

M/S Micro Polymers Vs M/S Hydro Products

Nitesh Estates Limited, Vs Dentsu Communications India Private Limited

Mr Thomas M Koleth Vs Mr B Chandrashekar Reddy