UNION OF INDIA Vs. P RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but interesting question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether it is mandatory to grant compulsory retirement pension under rule 64 of the Railway Services(Pension) Rules 1993 (for short the 'Rules') on the date of his compulsory retirement itself. The above question has cropped up for consideration in the following facts and circumstances.

(2.) The respondent in this writ petition was allegedly caught red handed by the Central Bureau of Investigation while accepting a bribe of 2,000/- from a trader at Erode on July 25, 2002. At that time, he was working as Chief Commercial Inspector in the Railway Administration. It is on record that the CBI Court found respondent No. 1 guilty of the charge levelled against him and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. We are informed that the appeal preferred by the respondent is pending consideration before the High Court of Madras.

(3.) After his conviction, the respondent was compulsorily retired from service as is revealed from Annexure A2 order dated November 21, 2005. It is the admitted position that the said order has become final, since it was never challenged by the respondent before any statutory authority.