SRINIVASAN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Ka.Mu.105/2025/A1 dtd. 7/7/2025 and seeking consequential direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner from March, 2024 to till date and continuously pay the same to the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had superannuated from service in the police department and he had been receiving pension. The petitioner was inflicted with the punishment under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for which he had suffered with an order of conviction. Under the impugned order, by invoking the provision under Rule 8 of TamilNadu Pension Rules, 1978, pension had been stopped without offering an opportunity to the petitioner. He relied upon the judgement of this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 5002 of 2024 dtd. 5/9/2024, to contend that conviction for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be termed as a punishment for an offence involving moral turpitude and therefore he would submit that no action can be initiated for the conviction suffered by the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act to withhold his pension that too without following the due process of law. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order passed by the second respondent herein.

(3.) Countering his argument, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has been repeatedly convicted for the offences under Sec. 138 of NI Act which would amount to grave misconduct. He would submit that it is not disputed by the petitioner that he had not been convicted and he had also admitted his conviction and therefore by invoking the provisions of Rule 8 of the TamilNadu Pension Rules which envisaged that the pensioner should have good conduct and if good conduct is not shown the pension could be stopped. The petitioner having involved in three cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act had committed a grave misconduct which also ended in conviction and therefore, there is no error in the order impugned herein. He further submits that in the present case, no enquiry is also required as it is proved case that the petitioner had suffered with an order of conviction. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the present writ petition.