MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 endorsed on 07.04.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No. 1 vide which the pension and gratuity of the petitioner was stopped under Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol-II. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 07.04.2014 as sanctioned in order dated 27.02.2012 endorsed on 02.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) and gratuity w.e.f. 30.09.2007 i.e. date of retirement of the petitioner alongwith interest.

(2.) The admitted facts of this case are that the petitioner, who was working as Superintendent with the respondent No. 2 department, was booked in an FIR No. 08 dated 05.05.2001 registered under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) 88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Phase-I, Mohali, Punjab. The trial was conducted by the learned Special Judge, Rupnagar. In the meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2007 vide order dated 25.09.2007 endorsed on 27.09.2007 (Annexure P-1). The learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.02.2011, petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years in addition to fine of Rs. 4,000/-. Against the said judgment of learned Special Judge, Rupnagar, the petitioner has preferred an appeal bearing No. CRA-680-SB of 2011 before this Court which has been admitted vide order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Thereafter, the Government passed an order dated 27.02.2012 endorsed on 02.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) whereby on the basis of the conviction, invoking powers under Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol-II, 25% of the provisional pension of the petitioner has been withheld during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. Subsequently, the Government vide another order dated 06.07.2012 endorsed on 11.07.2012 (Annexure P-4), has reviewed the said order whereby in place of withholding of 25% of the provisional pension of the petitioner, 100% of the provisional pension was withheld. This order was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 13786 of 2012 before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 15.05.2013 whereby the said order dated 06.07.2012 endorsed on 11.07.2012 withholding 100% of the provisional pension of the petitioner was struck down while observing that under the said Rules there is a provision of grant of personal hearing which has been clearly violated in this Case. The Government was granted liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted personal hearing and now, the impugned order dated 04.04.2014 endorsed on 07.04.2014 (Annexure P-8) has been passed whereby 100% provisional pension of the petitioner alongwith gratuity have been withheld with a rider that the claim would be taken up for consideration in the point of time when the petitioner is acquitted if at all. It is this order, the petitioner has impugned in the present case.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the case file.