LAKHMINDER SINGH BRAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this matter which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") was confronted with in O.A.No.1991/2007 was:- "whether the respondents were right in granting only the provisional pension to the petitioner instead of regular pension on account of the pendency of Criminal Appeal against his acquittal.". The Tribunal has answered this question against the petitioner and that is why the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy, we may pen down a few facts. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2007 as Assistant Commissioner of Police. Instead of fixing his regular pension after his retirement, the respondent sanctioned only provisional pension vide order dated 18.10.2007. Even though, no departmental inquiry was pending against him. It is however relevant to note that the petitioner was summoned by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi in FIR 190/2002 under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, PS New Friends Colony,

(3.) The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order in OA No.1037/2006 before this Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 28.09.2006 wherein the respondent had stated that they were not contemplating any departmental enquiry against the petitioner after acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. After quashing of the impugned suspension order, the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, the period of the suspension was not regularized. The grievance of the petitioner is that since there was no departmental enquiry initiated by the respondents against the applicant, his period of suspension should have been regularized and regular pension should have been sanctioned instead of the provisional pension as has been sanctioned in this case.