CHETAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on Rule 2.2(a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II and a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in N.K. Suparna Vs. Union of India and others, : 2005 (1) RSJ 707, submits that the petitioner had already superannuated and he was not convicted for any offence given in the explanation to Rule 2.2, the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction. He further submits that despite the fact that the department was competent and entitled to conduct a departmental enquiry simultaneously when the criminal trial was going on, however, no such departmental enquiry was conducted because of which respondent no. 2 was not having any competence to pass the impugned order, whereby the provisional pension already released in favour of the petitioner has been stopped only on the ground that he has been convicted for the offences under Sections 13(1)D read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409/419/467/468/471 and 120 -B IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 30.3.2013, whereby petitioner was awarded the sentence of five years imprisonment. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that since the appeal of the petitioner is pending against the judgment of conviction, his conviction is not final so far and respondent no. 2 ought not to have passed the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. He prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is a matter of record that petitioner was involved in FIR No. 37 dated 8.6.1996 under Sections 13(1)D read with Section 13(2)88 PC Act and Sections 409/419/467/468/471 and 120 -B IPC registered by the Vigilance Department. During the pendency of the criminal trial, petitioner reached at the age of superannuation and retired from service with effect from 31.1.2009. Provisional pension was released in favour of the petitioner. However, it is also a matter of record and not in dispute that after his retirement, petitioner came to be acquitted by the court of competent jurisdiction, vide judgment of acquittal dated 30.3.2013. Respondent no. 2 issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide Annexure P -1. Petitioner submitted his reply vide Annexure P -2. After considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice and also the direction issued by this court, vide order dated 18.11.2008 in CWP No. 18552 of 2007, respondent no. 2 came to the conclusion that the provisional pension already released in favour of the petitioner was liable to be stopped. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P -3). After careful perusal of the impugned order, relevant provisions of law and the peculiar fact situation of the present case, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is so said, because the impugned order has neither been found to be arbitrary nor discriminatory and the same deserves to be upheld.