BENGALURU: Ruling that imposing a penalty of withholding 100 per cent pension and gratuity on a permanent basis, based on the advice of the disciplinary authority, has no sanction in law, the Karnataka High Court directed the central government’s Ministry of Finance to pay the entire pension that was withheld and full gratuity to a septuagenarian.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun (73) from Dharwad, a cancer patient, against the arbitrary action of the finance ministry.
The petitioner was working as superintendent in the officer of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, in Hubballi. He was caught with a certain amount of money which he found on his table in 2011, and faced criminal charges. Later, the case was transferred to CBI which filed a chargesheet in 2013, while the petitioner had retired on January 31, 2012.
The inquiry officer exonerated him, but based on the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, the impugned order of withholding pension and gratuity was passed on February 6, 2023.
Against this, Karkun filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, he was acquitted of offences charged by the CBI. He moved the high court, owing to his advancing age and the fact that he had been acquitted in the criminal case. Karkun’s counsel contended that the penalty is impermissible under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, or even under Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and the petitioner has no money for his cancer treatment.
Counsel for the ministry submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending and he should await the outcome of the decision of the Appellate Authority.
Rejecting it, the high court said the petitioner is now 73 years old. He has not seen his terminal benefits, despite his retirement 13 years ago, and was left bleeding by the impugned penalty, which is worse than dismissal. There is no question of sending the petitioner back to the doors of the Appellate Authority, the court said.
Quashing the ministry’s order dated February 6, 2023, the court said the petitioner is entitled to all benefits, including entire pension and gratuity, that would flow from this order. In the event that the ministry does not disburse the terminal benefits, the petitioner becomes entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the date of superannuation till the date of payment. Pension should be paid as directed, and not drive a septuagenarian to this court yet again, the court said.