STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus KALICHARAN MOHAPATRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 20-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,,.._ 
A 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
v. 
KALICHARAN MOHAPATRA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law: 
c 
:All India Se1vices (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958-Rule 
6-Pendency of Climinal case against pensione1~Withholding of gratuity 
amount and not sanctioning pension finally-Justification of-"Miscon-
duct''-Meaning of 
Words & phrases : "Misconduct''-Meaning of-Jn the contei:t of All 
D India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958-To be under-
stood in the manner defined in the Prevention of Conuption Act. 
Respondent was a member of the Indian Police Service and had 
retired on December 31, 1990. A raid was conducted on his residential 
E 
premises about six months prior to his retirement. On the basis of the 
material recovered, a prosecution was launched against him under S.13(2) 
read with S.13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being in posses-
sion of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Due to 
pendency of the criminal case, the appellants withheld the gratuity amount 
and did not sanction the pension finally though provisional pension was 
F 
sanctioned. Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. 
; 
The appellants relied on Rule 6 of the All India Services (Death-cum-
Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, in support of their action. The Tribunal 
held that there was no justification in withholding the gratuity amount as 
also in not sanctioning the pension finally. It also held that as the charge 
G 
against the resprmdent was not one of causing pecuniary loss to the 
Central or State Government by misconduct or negligence within the 
meaning of Rule 6(1), the appellants cannot avail of it. Hence this appeal 
by State of Orissa. 
.
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Tribunal, 
H this Court 
836 
STATEv. KMOHAPATRA(B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 
837 
tlELD : 1. Where a judicial proceeding is pending against a pen-
A 
sioner for grave misconduct, the government is entitled to withhold 
gratuity amount and/or death-cum-gratuity amount and is also entitled to 
sanction provisional pension for the period of pendency of the said 
proceedings. It is not necessary that a judicial proceeding should relate to 
the charge of causing pecuniary loss to the Central or State Government B 
by misconduct or negligence during his service. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of 
the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 
specifies two grounds upon which action thereunder can be taken. One is 
where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct and the other is 
where he is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Central or State 
Government by misconduct and negligence during his service. Sub-rule(2) C 
provides for orders to be made during the pendency of such proceedings. 
Neither the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules nor the Pen-
sions Act, General Clauses Act or the Leave Rules define the expression 
"misconduct". It would, therefore, be reasonable and permissible to under-
stand the said expression in Rule 6 aforesaid in the manner defined in the D 
Prevention of Corruption Act. [841-A-D] 
2. The Tribunal was, in error in holding that unless the charge 
expressly charges the pensioner with causing pecuniary loss to Central or 
State Government by his negligence or misconduct during his service, 
action under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 cannot be taken. (841-E] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8400 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.94 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Orissa in O.A. No. 439 of 1992. 
F . 
Jayant Das and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellants. 
Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal (Cuttack Bench) allowing the Original Application 
filed by the respondent and directing the appellants (respondents in the H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Original Application) to release final pension and gratuity to the respon-
dent within ninety days of the judgment. 
B 
The respondent was a member of the Indian Police Service. He 
retired on December 31, 1990. About six months prior to his retirement, a 
raid was conducted on his residential premises. On the basis of the mat~rial 
recovered, a prosecution has been launched agai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.