CWP-9905-2022 IN T 261 Gore Lal State of Punjab an CORAM: HON ***** Present : Mr. P Ms. S ***** AMAN CHAUDH 1. Praye dated 29.12.2017 petitioner have bee 2. The i as the same has b Punjab and other on all fours, which controvert regards the aforementione read thus:- 2 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date Versus jab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN C ***** Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. ***** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) yer made in the present petition .2017 vide which provisional pensio ave been stopped. he issue involved in the present pe has been decided by this Court in others, CWP-22174-2015, on 19.12. which learned State counsel despite b egards the factual position and draw ntioned judgment or cite any contrary “The argument which has b the respondents has already b while deciding CWP No.24 01.12.2018. In the said case als after the conviction of an empl as raised by the counsel for th case of departmental inquiry, t more than 1/3rd pension ha considered and negatived. Rel 1 UNJAB & HARYANA ARH CWP-9905-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.01.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents AN CHAUDHARY or the petitioner. tition is for setting aside the order pension/pensionary benefits of the ent petition is no longer res integra in Darshan Singh vs. State of 19.12.2018, covers the present case spite best efforts has been unable to draw out any distinctive aspects in ontrary law, relevant paras whereof has been raised by the counsel for ady been considered by this Court No.24736 of 2017 decided on ase also, 100% pension was stopped n employee and the same argument, l for the State that it is only in the uiry, the sealing of not withholding ion has been imposed, has been d. Relevant para of the judgment is rder the e of le to ts in reof l for ourt on ped ent, the ding een nt is ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) as under: “In order to appreciate the con by the respective counsel, Rul Services Rules, Vol.II needs to 2.2 Recoveries from conduct is an implied conditio The Government reserve to withholding or withdrawing a p pensioner be convicted of serio misconduct. In a case where a pensio crime, action shall be taken in the court relating to such conv by the preceding paragraph, that the pensioner is prima faci it shall before passing an order (i) serve upon the pensioner a proposed to be taken against h it is proposed to be taken and within sixteen days of the re further time not exceeding fift by the pension sanctioning aut he may wish to make against th (ii) take into consideration submitted by the pensioner und Where a part of pension is amount of such part of pensio one-third of the pension origin amount of pension left to reduced to less than three thou month, having regard to the amount of the pension left to would be adequate for his main In a case where an orde be passed by the Govern Commission shall be consult passed.” A bare perusal of the R power to the competent autho states that a future good condu every grant of a pension and themselves the right to withho any part of it if the pensioner i or to be guilty of a grave m said, the Rule 2.2 (a) states convicted of a serious crime, t light of the judgment of t conviction. 2 he contention which has been raised el, Rule 2.2 (a) of the Punjab Civil eds to be reproduced herein:- from pensions.–(a) Future good ndition of every grant of a pension. rve to themselves the right of ing a pension or any part of it if the f serious crime or be guilty of grave pensioner is convicted of a serious ken in the light of the judgment of h conviction. In a case not covered raph, if the Government considers a facie guilty of grave misconduct, order,– ioner a notice specifying the action ainst him and the grounds on which en and calling upon him to submit, the receipt of the notice or such ng fifteen days, as may be allowed ng authority, such representation as ainst the proposal; and ration the representation, if any, er under sub-clause (i). ion is withheld or withdrawn the pension shall not ordinarily exceed originally sanctioned nor shall the ft to the pensioner be ordinarily e thousand five hundred rupees per to the consideration whether the left to the pensioner, in any case, is maintenance. n order under clause (i) above is to overnment, the Public Service onsulted before the final order is the Rule 2.2 (a), which gives the t authority to withhold the pension conduct is an implied condition of on and the government reserve to ithhold or withdraw the pension or ioner is convicted of a serious crime ave misconduct. After noticing the states that where a pensioner is rime, the action is to be taken in the of the Court relating to such ised ivil ood ion. of f the rave ious t of ered ders uct, tion hich mit, such wed n as any, the ceed l the arily per the ase, is to vice r is the sion n of e to n or ime the r is the such ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) In the next paragraph, i Rule 2.2 (a) that in case a pen conviction then the Governmen a pensioner is guilty of a prim case authorities find that pe misconduct after granting due concerned pensioner and after filed, the decision can be arriv to be taken against the pension After noticing the abov power which has been given pass an appropriate order of w amount of such part of pensio exceed 1/3rd of the pension o the amount of pension left ordinarily reduced to less than done so that a pensioner in any for his/her maintenance. The interpretation wh forwarded that in case of con right to withhold full pension, reading of the Rules. The prov given to withhold and a seal applicable in the case of convi of Law as well as in the case o decisions the department h opportunity to the concern inquiry). Therefore, the distinc create by the State counsel, is n the Rule 2.2 (a). '' Once the same argume State has already been consid cannot be accepted in the prese argument raised by the State withhold 100 % pension in cas Furthermore, in the pres P-10) has been passed on th which was issued to the petiti clear from order (Annexure P charge-sheet, which was issue duty, the officer passing th Education Punjab notices the c respect of FIR No.14 dated 17 No.36 dated 23.05.1994. Thou order in respect of the charge being withheld on the basis of t At this stage, the counse that even if the interpretation, 3 raph, it has been mentioned in the e a pensioner is not covered by the ernment is to consider as to whether a prima facie misconduct or not. In hat pensioner is guilty of grave g due opportunity of hearing to the after considering the reply, if any e arrived at as to what action needs ensioner. e above two situations, there is a given to the competent authority to r of withholding or withdrawing the pension which shall not ordinarily sion originally sanctioned nor shall n left to the pensioner shall be s than Rs.3500/- per month. This is in any case has an adequate amount n which the State counsel has of conviction, the Government has nsion, is not borne out of the plain e proviso where the power has been a sealing has been fixed, is duly conviction by the competent Court case of grave misconduct on which ent has to arrive at after due ncerned pensioner (departmental distinction which is being sought to el, is not borne out of the reading of rgument raised by the respondent- considered and rejected, the same e present case as well and hence the State that the State has power to in case of conviction is rejected. e present case, the order (Annexure on the basis of the charge-sheet, petitioner on 05.10.2009, which is xure P-10). After noticing the said s issued for remaining absent from ing the order i.e. the Director, s the conviction of the petitioner in ated 17.02.1995 as well as the FIR . Though the officer has passed an harge-sheet but the actual pension is sis of the conviction. counsel for the petitioner points out tation, which is being given by the the the ther t. In rave the any eeds is a y to the arily hall be is is ount has has lain een duly ourt hich due ntal ht to g of ame the r to xure eet, h is said rom ctor, er in FIR d an n is out the ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) State counsel is to be accepte where the order is passed on t then only 1/3rd of the pen respondents in reply to paragra mentioned that impugned orde conviction. Relevant reply of p “14. That in reply to para No submitted that the contents o denied. However, it is submitte P-10 clearly shows that the pen been withdrawn on account of under Section 302/324 IPC. petitioner has been withdraw misconduct as future good con for getting pension.” A bare perusal of same stand taken by the respondent (Annexure P10) was passed no due to the grave misconduct o the petitioner was issued c Therefore, even as per the counsel, as the order was passe on the basis of grave miscondu withhold more than 1/3rd o Counsel for the respondents h view of the stand taken, the r reproduced hereinbefore. Even otherwise, Rule 2.2 coordinate Bench of this Cour titled as Sardara Singh Vs. Sta order dated 05.04.2016, this Rule 2.2 (a) in paragraph 7, a the coordinate Bench that pens withheld in any case. The relev said judgment are as under: “7. In the written statement fil on account of Rule 2.2(a) of th Vol-II Part-I [in short “Rule 2 convicted by Court has no rig his pension has rightly been thus:- “2.2. Recoveries from pension an implied condition of eve Government reserve to themse or withdrawing a pension or an convicted of serious crime or b In a case where a pensioner is action shall be taken in the ligh 4 ccepted, though not accepted, that d on the basis of grave misconduct e pension can be withheld, the aragraph 14 of the writ petition has d order is not passed on the basis of ly of para 14 is as under: ara No.14 of the writ petition it is ents of this para are wrong hence ubmitted that a perusal of Annexure the pension of the petitioner had not unt of his conviction and sentence IPC. In fact the pension of the ithdrawn on the basis of grave od conduct is an essential ingredient same would show that as per the ndents before this Court, the order sed not on account of conviction but duct of remaining absent, for which ued charge-sheet on 05.10.2009. r the interpretation of the State s passed in the case of the petitioner sconduct, the respondents could not /3rd of the pension in any case. dents has no satisfactorily reply in the respondents before this Court, ule 2.2 (a) has been interpreted by a s Court in CWP No.16316 of 2012 s. State of Punjab and others. Vide this Court after reproducing the h 7, a finding has been recorded by t pension more than 1/3rd cannot be e relevant paragraphs 7 and 8 of the ent filed, a plea has been taken that ) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Rule 2.2(a)”], person who has been no right to pension and, therefore, een stopped. Rule 2.2(a) reads ensions.–(a) Future good conduct is f every grant of a pension. The themselves the right of withholding n or any part of it if the pensioner be e or be guilty of grave misconduct. ner is convicted of a serious crime, he light of the judgment of the court that duct the has is of it is ence xure not ence the rave ient the rder but hich 009. tate oner not ase. y in ourt, by a 012 ide the d by t be f the that ules een fore, eads ct is The ding r be ime, ourt ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) relating to such conviction. In a case not covered by the Government considers that th guilty of grave misconduct, it s (i) serve upon the pensioner a proposed to be taken against h it is proposed to be taken and within sixteen days of the re further time not exceeding fift by the pension sanctioning aut he may wish to make against th (ii)take into consideration submitted by the pensioner und Where a part of pension is amount of such part of pensio one-third of the pension origin amount of pension left to reduced to less than three thou month, having regard to the amount of the pension left to would be adequate for his main 8. The above provision woul conduct of the government consideration. On account of action can be taken. Howev prescribed for ensuring that the and part of the pension can normally exceed 1/3rd of the nor shall the amount of pens ordinarily reduced to less than Therefore, it is clear t already held that as per 2.2(a) o not more that 1/3rd of the pen Counsel for the responde Sardara Singh's case (sup consideration the order passe LPA No.427 of 2013 dated 1 interpreting Rule 2.2 (a) of Pu Division Bench had come to pension cannot be withheld. states that the said order was re and, thereafter, while deciding Bench vide order dated 05 holding that 100% pension can the facts, the case file of the summoned from where it trans allowed the LPA while interpre to Punjab, which is being inte 5 by the preceding paragraph, if the that the pensioner is prima facie ct, it shall before passing an order,– ioner a notice specifying the action ainst him and the grounds on which en and calling upon him to submit, the receipt of the notice or such ng fifteen days, as may be allowed ng authority, such representation as ainst the proposal; and tion the representation, if any, er under sub-clause (i). ion is withheld or withdrawn the pension shall not ordinarily exceed originally sanctioned nor shall the ft to the pensioner be ordinarily e thousand five hundred rupees per to the consideration whether the eft to the pensioner, in any case, is maintenance. would go on to show that future ment servant is to be taken into nt of conviction on serious crime, However, safe guards have been hat the person can maintain himself n can be withheld which cannot f the pension originally sanctioned f pension left to the pensioner be s than Rs.40 per month.” lear that a coordinate Bench has .2(a) of Punjab Civil Services Rule, e pension granted can be withheld. spondents states that while deciding (supra), the Court took into passed by the Division Bench in ated 12.11.2014 vide which while of Punjab Civil Services Rule, the me to the conclusion that 100% held. Counsel for the respondents was recalled by the Division Bench ciding the same LPA, the Division ed 05.10.2016 allowed the LPA on can be stopped. In order to verify of the above mentioned LPA was it transpires that the Division Bench nterpreting Rule 2.2(a) as applicable g interpreted in the present case as the acie tion hich mit, such wed n as any, the eed l the arily per the ase, ture into ime, een self nnot ned r be has ule, eld. ding into h in hile e 00% ents nch sion PA rify was nch able e as ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 2 (O&M) well on 12.11.2014. As Shank the State of Haryana, a revie ground that Rule 2.2 as applica different and there is no 1/3rd Rule and, therefore, the order be recalled. It was under these dated 12.11.2014 was recalled thereafter, while interpreting t the State of Haryana, the LPA Even though the order dated No.427 of 2013 was recalled b Division Bench while interp applicable in the State of P pension cannot be stopped. The learned Single Judge while d inadvertently relied upon the o be accepted. Further more, withho exceeding 1/3rd is for a reason in Rule 2.2(a) itself. As per R left with adequate amount for h be said that the said clause w person is found guilty of departmental inquiry but not w a competent Court of Law. cannot be differentiated by a ju of Law in case relating to c given by the competent author in the departmental proceeding Therefore, the sealing w (a) to not withhold more than sanctioned, will be duly applic a person has been held guilty b and where a person has be misconduct in the department interpretation being extended respondents cannot be accepted In view of the above, the aside. The opportunity is give fresh order in consonance wit (a), as interpreted by this C noticed hereinbefore. The pres the above terms. After the order is passed the respondents authority, in given above, whatever the d petitioner is found entitled for him from the date it was stopp 6 Shankar Lal's case was relating to review petition was filed on the applicable in the State of Haryana is 1/3rd sealing provided in the said order dated 12.11.2014 is liable to r these circumstances that the order ecalled by the Division Bench and, g the Rule 2.2 as applicable to LPA was dismissed on 05.10.2016. dated 12.11.2014 passed in LPA lled but it is a matter of fact that the interpreting the Rule 2.2 (a) as of Punjab, also held that 100% ed. Therefore, this argument that the hile deciding Sardara Singh's case n the order dated 12.11.2014 cannot ithholding of the pension not reason which has been enumerated per Rule 2.2(a) a person should be nt for his/her maintenance. It cannot ause will only applicable in case a ty of grave misconduct in the t not where a person is convicted by Law. Maintenance of a pensioner by a judgment of a competent Court to criminal activity or a finding authority about a grave misconduct eedings. ling which has been put by Rule 2.2 re than 1/3rd of pension originally applicable in case of both i.e. where uilty by the Criminal Court of Law as been held guilty of a grave rtmental inquiry and, therefore, the tended by the counsel for the cepted. ve, the order (Annexure P-10) is set is given to the respondents to pass ce with the provisions of Rule 2.2 this Court on earlier occasion as e present writ petition is allowed in passed, the fresh order is passed by ity, in pursuance to the direction the difference of the pension the ed for, the same will be released to stopped. Let the above mentioned g to the a is said le to rder and, e to 016. PA t the ) as 00% t the case nnot not ated d be nnot se a the d by oner ourt ding duct 2.2 here Law rave , the the s set pass 2.2 as d in d by tion the d to ned ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-9905-2022 3. The p 23.01.2025 ashok Whet Whet 2 (O&M) exercise be carried out of pas period of three months.” The petition is disposed of in terms of Whether speaking : Whether reportable : 7 of passing the fresh order within a rms of Darshan Singh (supra). (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No in a ASHOK KUMAR 2025.01.25 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document