LAWS(APH)-2008-8-19

KHAJA SYED RAIFUDDIN Vs. GOVT OF A P

Decided On August 22, 2008
KHAJA SYED RAIFUDDIN Appellant
V/S
GOVT OF A P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assista Engineer in the erstwhile A. P. Stats Electricity Board, on 01-11-1976. With tf reorganization of the Board into Generatio Transmission and Distribution Companie he became the employee of A. P. Southe Power Distribution Company of A. P. Lt the 2nd respondent herein, and earm promotion, as Divisional Engineer.

(2.) ON 02-01-2003, a trap was laid again the petitioner, by the officials of the A. C, He was tried in C. C. No. 23 of 2003, by the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACb Cases, Nellore, for the offence under Section 13 (2), read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was placed under suspension, immediately after the trap. He retired from service on 31-05-2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. Inasmuch as the petitioner was facing trial in the criminal case, he was sanctioned provisional pension, @ Rs. 9,759.00 per month, vide proceedings dated 29-08-2003, by the 2nd respondent. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, through its judgment dated 20-06-2007, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. Petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2007, before this Court, against the judgment of the Trial Court. The sentence against the petitioner was suspended by this Court, through its order dated 10-07-2007 in Crl. A. M. P. No. 1151 of 2007. The 2nd respondent issued memo dated 27-09-2007, withholding the pension and gratuity of the petitioner, permanently. He feels aggrieved by the said order.

(3.) THE respondents filed a counter - affidavit, opposing the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the sanction of the provisional pension was, pending the disposal of the proceedings before the Trial Court, and once a judgment is rendered therein, convicting the petitioner, the necesity to nav provisional pension, ceases to exist. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. C. Sareen v. C. B. I. Chandigarh1.