PARKASH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that an F.I.R. No. 162, dated 2nd July, 1980 was lodged against the petitioner under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act while he was in service of the State of Haryana as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer. He had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on July 31, 1980. The trial arising out of the above-mentioned F.I.R. ended in conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court on 12th January, 1982. He was, however, acquitted on appeal by this Court on 15th July, 1983.

(2.) During the investigation/trial of the first F.I.R., another F.I.R. No. 5 under Sections 467/471/161 I.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was lodged against the petitioner on 13th March, 1981. The trial arising out of the second F.I.R. ended in conviction of the petitioner by the trial Court on 30th July, 1986, which was upheld by this Court in appeal on 7th March, 1989, though the sentence was reduced to that of already undergone. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 3rd August, 1989 by the respondent-Authorities as to why the pension and gratuity and other service benefits arising out of the service be not permanently withheld because of the conviction of the petitioner, referred to above. After considering the reply of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, which was sent on 12th September, 1989, the respondent-Authorities vide order dated 18th January, 1990 (Annexure P. 23), it was decided that full pension and gratuity of the petitioner be withheld permanently. It is this order of the State Government that has been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Rule 2.2(c)(1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume II, as applicable to Haryana, (hereinafter called the Rules) where any judicial proceeding is instituted under clause (b) of Rule 2.2. of the Rules, the Officer is entitled to be paid provisional pension under the Rules during the period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on which, upon conclusion of such proceedings, final orders are passed. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had retired on 31st July, 1980 and the conviction arising out of F.I.R. No. 162 dated 2nd July, 1980 was on 12th January, 1982 by the trial Court. According to him, he was entitled to provisional pension with effect from 1st August, 1980 to 11th July, 1982 in the first instance, but since he was acquitted on 15th July, 1983 by this Court in appeal, the provisional pension should have been paid again from 12th January, 1982 onwards till the conviction, if any, arising out of the second F.I.R. No. 5 dated 13th December, 1981. Since, according to him, the second conviction by the trial Court (which was upheld by the High Court) was on 6th July, 1986, the petitioner was entitled to provisional pension right from 1st August, 1980 to 30th July, 1986. He further argued that once such a provisional pension was paid even if thereafter there was an order withholding the pension in its entirety, the provisional pension was not recoverable under the provisions of Rule 2.2 (c)(2) of the Rules.