THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT & ORS. ETC. versus K. CHANDRAN ETC.

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 15-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2022] 4 S.C.R. 287
287
THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT & ORS. ETC.
v.
K. CHANDRAN ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.7437-7438 of 2021)
MARCH 15, 2022
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Service Law – Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) –
Kerala Service Rule – Rules 3 & 3A – Interpretation of – On
conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in
performance of official duties and an appeal pending before the
High Court, whether the employee is still entitled to the release of
his DCRG – Held: Rule 3A cannot be read in isolation nor the latter
part of it struck down – Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have
to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the
DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at
the stage of retirement – Even in absence of these proceedings in
certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG
– An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings in trial and would
be, thus, a continuation of judicial proceedings – 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 – It cannot be opined that the DCRG would
have to be released pending consideration of the criminal appeal.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The very objectives of holding back pension or
the DCRG must be kept in mind. One can be to recover the
amounts found due from the delinquent employee of any nature
whatsoever after appropriate notice and proceedings. The second
eventuality is if an employee is dismissed from service. It can
hardly be doubted that in the second eventuality of the dismissal
from service the employee would lose all retirement benefits.
[Para 28][303-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
2. The important aspect is whether Rule 3A is to be
construed in the context of Rule 3 or should be read
independently of itself. The High Court seeks to take a view that
Rule 3A is in a sense assisting Rule 3 and does not have any
independent existence. One is unable to agree to this line of
reasoning. Rule 3 commences where the Government reserves
to themselves the right to withhold or withdraw a pension or any
part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and all
its ramifications. Certain protective provisions have been made
even in that eventuality. This provision is applicable to pension
is clarified by Note 2, as it is stipulated that the word ‘pension’
would not include DCRG. Thus, DCRG and pension have been
dealt with as separate aspects. However, Note 2 provides that
the liabilities fixed against an employee or a pensioner can be
recovered from DCRG without the departmental/judicial
proceedings referred to in this Rule but after giving an employee
or pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity to explain. Rule
3A starts which refers to the grant of provisional pension not
exceeding the maximum pension which would have been
admissible on retirement where departmental or judicial
proceedings have been initiated under Rule 3. It is clearly
stipulated that no gratuity or DCRG shall be paid to him until the
conclusion of such proceedings and the issuance of final order
thereof. [Paras 31-35][304-B, E-G; 305-B-C]
3. The High Court has introduced a new legislation by
undertaking the exercise of reading down. There is absolutely
no need to do so when the language of the rule is so clear
conveying its intended meaning without any ambiguity. Rule 3A
cannot be read in isolation nor the latter part of it struck down as
done by the High Court. Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A
have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment
of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings
pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these
proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be
recovered from the DCRG. [Paras 36 & 37][305-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
4. Also, 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. 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 

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