Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2014CW/4050/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the withholding of the petitioner's pension due to conviction for serious criminal offenses. The court held the impugned order was justified under the relevant pension rules for convicted professionals and noted the existence of an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the stay order was also disposed of; no maintenance of the injunction against the impugned order.

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14.

¶4

SHI V KUMAR SHARMA – PETI TI ONER. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. – RESPONDENTS.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER : 8TH DECEMBER, 2014.

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON' BLE MS. JUSTI CE BELA M. TRI VEDI

¶8

Dr . Y. C. Shar ma f or t he pet i t i oner . Mr . J. M. Saxena, AAG assi st ed by Mr . Anur ag Kal vat i ya f or t he r espondent s.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

The pr esent pet i t i on has been f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner chal l engi ng t he l egal i t y of t he i mpugned or der dat ed 18. 3. 14 ( Annex. 4) passed by t he r espondent No. 2 under Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he Raj ast han Ci vi l Ser vi ces Pensi on Rul es, 1996 ( her ei naf t er r ef er r ed t o as ' t he sai d Rul es' ) , wi t hhol di ng t he pensi on of t he pet i t i oner on t he gr ound of he havi ng been convi ct ed and sent enced f or t he of f ence under Sect i on 13( 1) ( d) ( i i ) r ead wi t h Sect i on 15 of t he Pr event i on of Cor r upt i on Act and under Sect i on 477A r ead wi t h Sect i on 120B of I PC.

¶12

I n t he i nst ant case i t appear s t hat t he pet i t i oner r et i r ed f r om t he post of Juni or Engi neer , Panchayat Sami t i , Thanagazi on 31. 1. 2010. Hi s pensi on payment or der dat ed 24. 3. 11 was i ssued by t he r espondent No. 3, accor di ng t o whi ch t he pet i t i oner was bei ng

¶13

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 2

¶14

pai d pr ovi si onal pensi on under Rul e 90 of t he sai d Rul es. I t f ur t her appear s t hat one cr i mi nal case bei ng No. 1/ 99 was pendi ng agai nst t he pet i t i oner i n t he cour t of Speci al Judge, Pr event i on of Cor r upt i on Act , No. 1, Jai pur , i n whi ch t he pet i t i oner has been convi ct ed and sent enced f or t he of f ences as st at ed her ei nabove. Accor di ng t o t he pet i t i oner , he has f i l ed t he Cr i mi nal Appeal bei ng No. 800/ 13 bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t and

¶15

t he Hi gh Cour t has been pl eased t o st ay t he sent ence as per t he or der dat ed 21. 11. 13, whi l e admi t t i ng t he sai d appeal , however , t he r espondent No. 2 vi de i mpugned or der dat ed 18. 3. 14 has wi t hhel d t he pensi on i nvoki ng Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he sai d Rul es and t her ef or e t he pr esent pet i t i on has been f i l ed.

¶16

The cour t whi l e i ssui ng t he not i ce t o t he r espondent s had st ayed t he oper at i on of t he i mpugned or der dat ed 18. 3. 14, vi de t he or der dat ed 29. 4. 14. The sai d ex- par t e ad- i nt er i m or der was cont i nued f r om t i me t o t i me. I t appear s t hat t he pet i t i oner had al so f i l ed cont empt pr oceedi ngs f or t he non- compl i ance of t he sai d ex- par t e or der , and ht e r espondent s had f i l ed t he appl i cat i on under Ar t i cl e 226( 3) seeki ng vacat i on of t he sai d ex- par t e or der .

¶17

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 3

¶18

The r espondent s have r esi st ed t he wr i t pet i t i on by f i l i ng t he r epl y cont endi ng i nt er al i a t hat t he i mpugned or der wi t hhol di ng t he pensi on of t he pet i t i on was passed i n vi ew of t he pet i t i oner havi ng been convi ct ed and sent enced f or t he ser i ous cr i me, whi ch was per mi ssi bl e under Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he sai d Rul es.

¶19

I t has been sought t o be submi t t ed by t he l ear ned counsel Dr . Y. C Shar ma f or t he

¶20

pet i t i oner t hat t he r espondent s coul d not have wi t hhel d t he pensi on of t he pet i t i oner when t he pet i t i oner had pr ef er r ed an appeal agai nst t he or der of convi ct i on. He has r el i ed upon t he deci si on of t he Kar nat aka Hi gh Cour t i n case of N. K. Supar na Vs. Uni on of I ndi a & Or s. , i n Wr i t Pet i t i on NO. 5938 of 2004 deci ded on 23. 9. 04 , t o submi t t hat t he appeal bei ng i n cont i nuat i on of t he or i gi nal pr oceedi ngs t he pensi on amount of t he r et i r ed Gover nment ser vant coul d not be wi t hhel d. Mr . Shar ma ar gued at l engt h r el yi ng upon t he deci si on of t he Apex Cour t i n t he case of Of f i ci al Li qui dat or Vs. Dayanand & Or s. Ci vi l Appeal No. 2985 of 2007 deci ded on 4. 11. 2008 , t o submi t t hat t he deci si on of t he Di vi si on Bench of t he ot her Hi gh Cour t was bi ndi ng t o t hi s cour t , and accor di ngl y t he deci si on of Kar nat aka Hi gh Cour t r el i ed

¶21

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 4

¶22

upon by hi m was bi ndi ng t o t hi s cour t al so. Mr . Shr ma al so submi t t ed t hat t he pensi on bei ng t he " pr oper t y" wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e 300A of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a, t he pet i t i oner coul d not be depr i ved of hi s pr oper t y wi t hout gi vi ng hi m oppor t uni t y of hear i ng. He has r el i ed upon t he deci si on of Apex Cour t i n case of St at e of Jhar khand & Or s. Vs. Ji t endr a Kumar Sr i vast ava & Anr .

¶23

( 2013) 12 SCC 210 i n t hi s r egar d. Mr . Shar ma

¶24

has l ast l y submi t t ed t hat si nce t he r espondent No. 3 had f i xed t he pr ovi si onal pensi on under Rul e 90 of t he sai d Rul es, t he r espondent No. 2 coul d not have i nvoked Rul e 6 ( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he sai d Rul es t o wi t hhol d hi s pensi on.

¶25

However , t he l ear ned Addl . Advocat e Gener al Mr . J. M. Saxena f or t he r espondent s has submi t t ed t hat t he pet i t i oner havi ng been convi ct ed f or t he ser i ous cr i me under t he Pr event i on of Cor r upt i on Act and under t he I PC, t he concer ned aut hor i t y had r i ght l y wi t hhel d t he pensi on, i nvoki ng Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he sai d Rul es. Rel yi ng on t he deci si on of t hi s cour t i n case of Shr i Bhanwar Lal Agar wal Vs. The St at e of Raj ast han and Anr SBCWP No. 6164. 98 deci ded on 22. 11. 10 he submi t t ed t hat t he pensi on of t he Gover nment ser vant coul d be wi t hhel d i f

¶26

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 5

¶27

he was convi ct ed f or a ser i ous cr i me. Mr . Saxena al so submi t t ed t hat t he i mpugned or der havi ng been passed by t he aut hor i t y ot her t han t he Gover nor , t he pet i t i oner coul d have pr ef er r ed t he appeal under Rul e 6( 5) of t he sai d Rul es bef or e t he Gover nor , and t her ef or e al so t he pr esent pet i t i on i s not

¶28

mai nt ai nabl e.

¶29

Havi ng r egar d t o t he submi ssi ons made byt he l ear ned counsel s f or t he par t i es and t o t he

¶30

document s on r ecor d and t o t he r el evant Pensi on Rul es, i t appear s t hat t he i mpugned or der i s passed by t he r espondent No. 2 i nvoki ng Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) of t he sai d Rul es as t he pet i t i oner has been convi ct ed f or t he of f ences under Sect i on 13( 1) ( d) ( i i ) of t he Pr event i on of Cor r upt i on Act and under Sect i on 477A of t he I PC. As r i ght l y submi t t ed by Mr Saxena t her e bei ng an appeal pr ovi ded under Sub- r ul e 5 of Rul e 6 of t he sai d Rul es, bef or e t he Gover nor , t he i mpugned or der havi ng not been passed by t he Gover nor , t he pr esent pet i t i on i s l i abl e t o be di smi ssed on t he gr ound of avai l abi l i t y of al t er nat i ve r emedy. I n t he opi ni on of t he cour t , apar t f r om t he non- mai nt ai nabi l i t y of t he pr esent pet i t i on on t he gr ound of avai l abi l i t y of al t er nat i ve r emedy, t he pr esent pet i t i on has no subst ance even on mer i t s.

¶31

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 6

¶32

The r el evant par t of Rul e 6( 1) ( b) and 6( 2) r eads as under : -

¶33

" 6. Pensi on subj ect t o f ut ur e good condi ct .

¶34

( 1) ( a) . . . . . .

¶35

( b) The appoi nt i ng aut hor i t y may, by or der i n wr i t i ng, wi t hhol d or wi t hdr aw a pensi on or a par t t her eof , whet her per manent l y or f or a speci f i ed per i od, i f t he pensi oner i s convi ct ed of a ser i ous cr i me or i s f ound gui l t y of gr ave mi sconduct .

¶36

Pr ovi ded t hat wher e a par t of pensi on i s wi t hhel d or wi t hdr awn, t he amount of such pensi on shal l not be r educed bel ow t he amount of r upees t hr ee hundr ed per mensem.

¶37

6( 2) Wher e a pensi oner i s convi ct ed of a ser i ous cr i me by a Cour t of Law, act i on under sub- r ul e( 1) shal l be t aken i n t he l i ght of t he j udgment of t he cour t r el at i ng t o such convi ct i on. "

¶38

Fr om t he bar e r eadi ng of t he sai d Rul e, i t

¶39

cl ear l y t r anspi r es t hat t he appoi nt i ng aut hor i t y has power s t o wi t hhol d or wi t hdr aw t he pensi on or par t t her eof whet her per manent l y or f or a f i xed per i od i f t he pet i t i oner i s convi ct ed i n a ser i ous cr i me or i s f ound gui l t y of gr ave mi sconduct . Though t he expr essi on " ser i ous cr i me" has not been def i ned anywher e i n t he sai d Rul es, t he Expl anat i on t o t he sai d Rul e st at es t hat t he expr essi on " ser i ous cr i me" i ncl udes a cr i me i nvol vi ng an of f ence under t he Of f i ci al Secr et s Act , 1923. Fur t her i t i s t o be not ed t hat as per sub- r ul e ( 2) of Rul e 6, wher e a

¶40

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 7

¶41

pensi oner i s convi ct ed f or a ser i ous cr i me by a cour t of l aw, t he act i on under sub- r ul e( 1) i s r equi r ed t o be t aken i n t he l i ght of t he j udgment of t he cour t r el at i ng t o such convi ct i on. The r espondent No. 2, who i s appoi nt i ng aut hor i t y havi ng t aken i nt o consi der at i on t he j udgment of t he cr i mi nal cour t by whi ch t he pet i t i oner has been convi ct ed and sent enced f or t he of f ence under t he Pr event i on of Cor r oupt i on Act as wel l as

¶42

under t he I PC, whi ch bei ng t he ser i ous cr i me i n nat ur e, i t coul d not be sai d t hat t he i mpugned or der passed by t he concer ned aut hor i t y i s ar bi t r ar y or i l l egal .

¶43

The cont ent i ons r ai sed by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner t hat t he pet i t i oner havi ng been pai d pr ovi si onal pensi on under Rul e 90 of t he sai d Rul es, t he r espondent s coul d not have i nvoked Rul e 6, does not deser ve any consi der at i on f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat Rul e 90 deal s wi t h t he si t uat i on i n r espect of t he Gover nment ser vant s r ef er r ed t o i n sub- r ul e 4 of Rul e 7, wher eas Rul e 6 deal s wi t h t he si t uat i on i n r espect of t he f ut ur e good conduct of t he pensi oner . I n case of t he pet i t i oner , t he j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs havi ng al r eady been concl uded and he havi ng been convi ct ed and sent enced f or commi t t i ng ser i ous cr i me, t he r espondent No. 4 appoi nt i ng

¶44

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 8

¶45

aut hor i t y was aut hor i sed t o wi t hhol d t he pensi on under Rul e 6( 1) ( b) of t he sai d Rul es, t hough he was gr ant ed pr ovi si onal pensi on under Rul e 90 of t he sai d Rul es pendi ng t he sai d pr oceedi ngs. Apar t f r om t he f act t hat t he deci si on of Kar nat aka Hi gh Cour t r el i ed upon by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner has no appl i cat i on t o t he f act s of t he pr esent case, as t he sai d deci si on does not deal wi t h t he Rul e si mi l ar t o Rul e 6 of

¶46

t he Rul es i n quest i on, t he submi ssi on of Mr . Shar ma t hat t he sai d deci si on i s bi ndi ng t o t hi s cour t , al so cannot be accept ed, i n as much as such deci si on of ot her Hi gh Cour t woul d have onl y t he pur suasi ve val ue and not bi ndi ng val ue. The Apex Cour t i n t he case r el i ed upon by Mr . Shar ma has emphasi sed t he r equi r ement of adher ence t o t he r ul e of j udi ci al di sci pl i ne i n r espect of t he deci si ons of t he same cour t . I t has no wher e l ai d down t hat t he deci si on of t he ot her Hi gh Cour t s woul d be bi ndi ng t o t hi s cour t al so, as sought t o be submi t t ed by Mr . Shar ma. 11. The cour t al so does not f i nd any subst ance i n t he submi ssi on made by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he pet i t i oner t hat t he pet i t i oner was r equi r ed t o gi ve oppor t uni t y of hear i ng bef or e passi ng of t he i mpugned or der . Tt cannot be gai nsai d t hat t he pensi on i s not a

¶47

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 4050/ 14. 9

¶48

bount y payabl e on t he sweet wi l l and pl easur e of t he Gover nment and t hat i t i s a pr oper t y wi t hi n t he meani ng of Ar t i cl e 300A of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a, however , t her e bei ng a speci f i c pr ovi si on i n t he st at ut or y Rul es mor e par t i cul ar l y i n Rul e 6 of t he sai d Rul es aut hor i si ng t he compet ent aut hor i t y t o wi t hhol d t he pensi on i f t he pensi oner i s f ound t o be convi ct ed f or t he ser i ous cr i me, no oppor t uni t y of hear i ng i n such a si t uat i on

¶49

i s r equi r ed t o be af f or ded t o t he pet i t i oner . So l ong as t he sai d st at ut or y Rul es exi st , t he r espondent - aut hor i t y was per f ect l y j ust i f i ed i n passi ng t he i mpugned or der , i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he case.

¶50

For t he r easons st at ed above, t he cour t does not f i nd any mer i t i n t he pr esent pet i t i on and t he same deser ves t o be di smi ssed. The pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di smi ssed.

¶51

By t hi s or der , t he st ay appl i cat i on and ot her pendi ng appl i cat i ons i f any, al so st and di sposed of .

¶52

( BELA M. TRI VEDI ) J.

¶53

MRG.

¶54

Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. MRG/ PS

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asheesh Sharma and Ors. Vs State Medical and Healthors

Devi Lal Vs State Medical and Healthors

M/S Apr Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Secretary J D a and Another

Pramod Kumar Jangir Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sultan Singh Vs a v v N Ltd.

Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs State Education Departmentanr