[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
S.Venkateshwara Rao vs The Union Of India on 4 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Appeal No.459 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior
Counsel representing Mr.Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned
counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L.Pranathi
Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central
Government appearing for the respondents.
2. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order
dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.7619 of 2024 by the
learned writ court.
3. The appellant, who is writ petitioner, faced both
departmental proceedings, vide Charge Sheet in
Lr.No.X/SC/227/153/12/2006 dated 18.10.2006 and
criminal cases prosecuted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation court. In the criminal case, he was convicted
on 23.02.2010 and thereafter, dismissed from service, vide
Order No.2010/Sec/(ABE)/PRR/5/7, dated 17.06.2010.
2
The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant in
Crl.A.No.339 of 2010 ended up in his acquittal, vide
judgment dated 29.11.2022. He sought reinstatement.
Since no action was taken, he approached writ court. In
W.P.No.9752 of 2023, the learned writ court directed the
respondents to consider his representation, vide order
dated 25.04.2023 on the issue of reinstatement.
Consequently, respondent No.3 passed order dated
28.06.2023 setting aside the dismissal order. He was
reinstated into service, vide Battalion Order No.61 of 2023
dated 28.06.2023. He superannuated, vide Battalion Order
No.62 of 2023 dated 30.06.2023. The period of dismissal
was treated as ‘Not on Duty’ on the principle ‘No Work No
Pay’. Appellant approached the writ court once again
W.P.No.7619 of 2024 assailing the pending departmental
proceeding. The learned writ court upon consideration of
rival submissions of the parties, held that the charge sheet
against the appellant in the departmental proceedings is on
the similar set of charges, which were the subject matter of
criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the learned writ court
3
quashed the departmental proceedings continuing against
the appellant. Letters dated 15.03.2024 and 18.03.2024,
appointing the Enquiry Officers were also set aside.
However, while setting aside, the learned writ Court
observed that since the Special Leave Petition (SLP)
preferred by the CBI against his acquittal is still pending
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
appellant was granted liberty to make a suitable
representation for release of pensionary benefits after
disposal of the SLP. Respondents were asked to see that
the appellant is being paid the provisional pension.
Aggrieved by the last part of the order, the appellant
preferred this appeal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for appellant submits that
after the acquittal of the appellant, merely on the pendency
of the SLP, without any stay of his conviction, there is no
reason to withhold his pensionary benefits. The applicable
statutory rule also does not provide for withholding of
pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings in favour
of the delinquent employee. He submits that a Division
Bench of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court in the
4
case of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,
A.P., Hyderabad v. R.S.Ramakrishna Rao 1 relying upon a
decision of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the
case of State of West Bengal v. Hari Ramalu 2 held that
there is no power to the Government to withhold pension
or retirement benefits after the criminal Court acquits the
accused-employee. In that case, Rules 9 and 52 of the
Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 were in
question.
5. It is submitted that the Railway Services (Pension)
Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’) relied
upon by the respondents also do not permit withholding of
pension upon conclusion of judicial proceedings in favour
of the delinquent employee or accused. It is therefore
submitted that the order of the learned writ court to that
extent may be interfered and the pensionary dues to be
released in favour of the appellant.
6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents has referred to Rule 9 of the Rules and
1
2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB)
2
2000 (4) SLR 91
5
submitted that the Railway Department may withhold
pension or the appointing authority may withhold pension
or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdraw a
pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a
specified period, and order recovery from a pension or
gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused
to the Railway, if, in any departmental proceedings or
judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of service,
including service rendered upon re-employment after
retirement.
7. She submits that the pendency of the SLP would
amount to continuation of the judicial proceedings. She
has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in
Secretary, Local Self-Government Department, State of
Kerala v. K.Chandran 3 in particular paragraph 40 thereof.
8. It is submitted that if the appellant is finally
convicted, Railways would not be in a position to recover
the pensionary dues disbursed in his favour. Therefore, the
learned writ court has rightly observed that during the
3
(2022) 12 SCC 104
6
pendency of the SLP against his acquittal, the appellant
would be entitled to make a representation for release of
pension only depending upon the outcome of the SLP. Till
then, the appellant be paid the provisional pension.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties at length and taken note of the
material facts relevant to the controversy. We have also
taken note of the extant rules applicable to the case of the
appellant and the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the rival parties.
10. Rule 9 of the Rules, which confers powers to withhold
or withdraw pension upon the appointing authority in case
of a railway employee facing departmental proceedings or
judicial proceedings is extracted hereunder in extenso:
“9. Power to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) (a) The
President, in the case of a pensioner who retired from a post
for which the President is the appointing authority;
(b) the Railway Board, in the case of a pensioner who retired
from a post for which an authority subordinate to the
President is the appointing authority,
may, by order in writing, withhold a pension or gratuity, or
both, either in full or in part, or withdraw a pension in full
or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period,
and order recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole
7or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Railway, if, in
any departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings, the
pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence
during the period of service, including service rendered
upon re-employment after retirement :
Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be
consulted before any final orders are passed by the
President under this sub-rule:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be
reduced below the amount of minimum pension under rule
69.
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule
(1), if instituted while the railway servant was in service
whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,
shall, after the final retirement of the railway servant, be
deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which they
were commenced in the same manner as if the railway
servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are
instituted by an authority subordinate to the Competent
Authority to pass order under sub-rule (1), that authority
shall submit a report recording its findings to the said
competent authority.
(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and
clause (a), the departmental proceedings instituted under
rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968, while the railway servant was in service and
continued after retirement, shall have no effect on the
pension and gratuity of the pensioner.
8
(c) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
railway servant was in service, whether before his
retirement, or during his re-employment, –
(i) shall not be instituted except with the sanction of the
authority competent to pass order under sub-rule (1) in
Format 1;
(ii) shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority in such place as
the authority competent to pass order under sub-rule (1),
may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable
to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal
from service could be made in relation to the railway servant
during his service:
Provided that for the purpose of instituting departmental
proceedings under this sub-rule, a memorandum of charges
shall be communicated to the pensioner concerned in
Format 2.
(d) where a full-fledged inquiry is conducted giving an
opportunity to the such railway servant to show cause
during the proceedings in accordance with the Railway
Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, any further
opportunity to show cause would not be necessary before
taking action in same matter under sub-rule (1).
(3) In the case of railway servant who has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and
against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are
instituted or where departmental proceedings instituted
under rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1968 are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional
pension as provided in rule 10 shall be sanctioned.
9
(4) Where the authority competent to pass order under sub-
rule (1) decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but
orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery
shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of
the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a
railway servant.
(5) (a) No appeal shall lie against any order made by the
President under this rule.
(b) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1), passed by
an authority other than the President, shall lie to the
President and the President shall, in consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission, pass such orders on the
appeal as he deems fit.
(6) The President may at any time, either on his own motion
or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise
any order made under these rules, after consultation with
the Union Public Service Commission, and may confirm,
modify or set aside the order; or remit the case to any
authority directing such authority to make such further
enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of
the case or pass such other order as he may deem fit:
Provided that no order enhancing the amount of pension or
gratuity to be withheld or withdrawn, shall be made by the
President unless the railway servant concerned has been
given an opportunity of making a representation against the
order proposed and except after consultation with the Union
Public Service Commission.
(7) The President may at any time, either on his own motion
or otherwise review any order passed under these rules,
where extenuating or special circumstances exist to warrant
such review or when any new material or evidence which
could not be produced or was not available at the time of
10passing the order under review and which has the effect of
changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been
brought, to his notice:
Provided that no order enhancing the amount of the pension
or gratuity to be withheld or withdrawn, shall be made by
the President unless the railway servant concerned has
been given an opportunity of making a representation
against the order proposed and except after consultation
with the Union Public Service Commission.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule,-
(1) (a) the departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is
issued to the Railway servant or pensioner, or if the railway
servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier
date, on such date; and
(b) the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted,
–
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which
the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the
Magistrate takes cognisance, is made; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the suit is
filed in the court.
(2) the expression “misconduct” means any act done or
omitted to be done by the pensioner, during the period of
service, including service rendered upon re-employment
after retirement, and which was in violation of any
provisions of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966,
for which action under Railway Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1968 could be taken during the period of
service.
(3) the action under sub-rule (1) may be taken, if the
pensioner is found guilty of,-
11
(i) any corrupt practices during service;
(ii) any misconduct whether in relation to the performance
of official duty or otherwise; and
(iii) any misconduct whether resulting in pecuniary loss to
the Government or otherwise.
(4) the expression “civil proceedings” mean such
proceedings in respect of a civil suit filed by the Government
only.
(Authority: Railway Board’s letter No. 2023/F (E)III/PN1/1
dated 24.06.2024)”
11. As the narration of facts discloses that not only the
departmental proceedings has been quashed by the
learned writ court but also the judicial proceedings in the
nature of criminal proceedings prosecuted by the CBI has
ended in the acquittal of the appellant, vide judgment
dated 23.02.2010, whereupon the appellant has also been
reinstated into service. He was subsequently
superannuated and is seeking pensionary benefits on
account of acquittal in the criminal case.
12. The question before us is, whether the pendency of
SLP against the acquittal of the appellant, wherein there is
no order of stay of the conviction, would entitle the
respondents railways to withhold the pensionary benefits of
the appellant or not?
12
13. We are clear in our minds that if the judicial
proceeding or departmental proceeding has come to an end
in favour of the employee, like in the present case, the
statutory rule does not provide for any exception to still
withhold the pensionary dues of such an employee. The
judicial proceedings have come to an end upon his
acquittal. Mere pendency of the SLP before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court without any stay on the conviction could
not clothe the respondent-employer with a right to
withhold his pension.
14. In this regard, the opinion of the learned Division
Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra) is apposite to be
extracted herein:
“18. As per Rule 52(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, the
Government is empowered to withhold gratuity till the
final orders are passed either in the departmental or
judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there
is no provision that empowers the Government to
withhold retirement benefits.
…
20. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the
department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it
cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not
13been concluded. Once the criminal Court acquits the
accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the
judicial proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, the
appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be
treated as continuation of criminal proceedings. The
same view was taken by a Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court in State of West Bengal‘s case (supra),
referred to above. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as
follows:
“The submission of Mr. Chakraborty to the effect that
pendency of the appeal against acquittal will amount to
continuation of the proceedings cannot be accepted.
Continuation of the proceedings must relate to
investigation, enquiry or trial, and such investigation,
enquiry or trial, if any, have come to an end with the
judgment of acquittal. The same being continuing in the
instant case, is misconceived, only on the ground that an
appeal there against is pending. If the respondent No. 1 is
convicted by the Appeal Court for commission of a
criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules
would be attracted. Keeping in view the fact that different
sub-rules of Rules 3 operate in different fields, we are of
the opinion that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 be held to be
operative only in the case namely, when an investigation
enquiry or trial remains pending and not or when the
employee person is acquitted. The situations obtaining
under different sub-rule being absolutely different, in our
opinion, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 must be given a restrictive
interpretation”.
21. If the appeal is not in continuation of original
criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final
order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules,
referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by
the criminal Court, as already stated above, there is no
power for the Government to withhold pension or
retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable
to be paid immediately after acquittal order.
22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in
continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no
14
end for the litigation and the employees, who have been
acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits till
conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave
petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being
continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as
above, will not be available to Government for
withholding retirement benefits.”
15. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents
has relied upon the decision in K.Chandran (supra)
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the
said decision, we find that the issue before the leaned Apex
Court was as follows:
“On the conviction in a criminal case for violation of
integrity norms in performance of official duties and an
appeal pending before the High Court, is the employee still
entitled to the release of his death-cum-retirement gratuity
(for short “DCRG”) is the moot point arising for
consideration in the present appeals. We are, in fact,
examining a Full Bench judgment [K. Chandran v. State of
Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 4150] of the Kerala High
Court which resolved the conflict of view of the Division
Benches [Ed. : The reference appears to be to Kerala
SEB v. K. Kesavan, 2014 SCC OnLine Ker
9981; Aravindaksha Panicker v. Accountant General, 2007
SCC OnLine Ker 376; State of Kerala v. R. Muraleedharan
Nair, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 18292 and A. Rajan v. State of
Kerala, 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 11942.] and ruled in favour of
the employees. The controversy having been set down, the
15Government of Kerala, which is naturally aggrieved by the
decision [K. Chandran v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine
Ker 4150] of the Full Bench is before us on the aforesaid
issue.”
16. The employee had been convicted for offences under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. In this factual
matrix, the Apex Court after referring to the applicable
Rules, and the precedents on the point, held as under:
“40. We also believe that it is a very restrictive view to
disburse DCRG on account of the proceedings against a
pensioner coming to an end, even where a conviction has
arisen. This is especially so where the convicted person has
availed of the remedy of appeal. An appeal is a continuation
of the proceedings in trial and would be, thus, a
continuation of judicial proceedings. For example, if no
appeal had been filed, can it be said that despite conviction
in the criminal case, the State is without authority of
forfeiting the DCRG or pension for that matter? If it is not
so, as we believe, then the pendency of the appeal cannot
disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG, considering
that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements
have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome
of the appeal.”
17. As the facts of the said case disclose that the
respondent-employee was suffering a judgment of
16
conviction, the question was whether the filing of an appeal
by the convict would denude the authority from forfeiting
the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) or pension. In
that context, the Apex Court held that pendency of the
appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the
DCRG considering that it is a hiatus period within which
certain arrangements have to be made which would be
dependent on the outcome of the appeal.
18. This case on hand is rather converse. Here, the
employee had been acquitted. There is no stay of conviction
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mere pendency of the SLP
could not be treated as continuation of a judicial
proceeding, which has ended up in the acquittal of the
appellant by the appellate court. The statutory rule also
does not permit withholding of pension upon conclusion of
judicial proceedings.
19. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons and the
decision in the case of R.S.Ramakrishna Rao (supra), we
are of the considered view that the learned writ court erred
in holding that the appellant would be at liberty to make a
suitable representation for release of pensionary benefits
17
after disposal of the SLP and till that time, he would be
paid the provisional pension. This Court is therefore of the
opinion that the appellant is entitled for release of his
pensionary benefits upon his acquittal in the criminal case
also for the reason that the departmental proceeding has
been set aside by the learned writ court. The respondents
shall take a decision on the release of admissible
pensionary dues of the appellant within a period of four
(04) weeks.
20. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
____________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 04.08.2025
GJ
[ad_2]
Source link