PREETAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dtd. 16/10/19 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby original application preferred by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in denying provisional pension, leave encashment, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant are that while working on the post of Superintendent of Post Office, Churu, a complaint was submitted before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the petitioner for demanding bribe and on that basis, a trap was laid by the CBI and the petitioner was allegedly caught red handed. After investigation, the CBI filed the charge sheet in the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jodhpur. After trial, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, vide judgment dated 18/1/3. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court, has been admitted and the sentence awarded has been suspended vide order dated 27/1/3. Pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondent-employer imposed penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner vide order dated 6/6/4. The original application preferred by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dtd. 25/10/10. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Tribunal by way of D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 6029/15, which also stood dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 9/1/17.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an application before the respondent no. 3 for grant of provisional pension and other retiral benefits. The respondent no. 3 vide order dtd. 20/12/16 sanctioned a sum of Rs.25,598.00 to the petitioner on account of payment of CGEIS-80 and the said amount has been paid to the petitioner. That apart, a sum of Rs.26,829.00 was paid to the petitioner towards GPF vide sanction dtd. 12/7/16, which has also been received by the petitioner. However, the claim of the petitioner for provisional pension, leave encashment and DCRG stands rejected by the respondents.