Vinod Krishan Aggarwal vs Delhi Transport Corporation ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1248 Del

$~22
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          W.P.(C) 2058/2017
                                           Date of decision: 7th March, 2017
VINOD KRISHAN AGGARWAL                                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through              Mr. Ravindra S. Garia, Advocate.

                           versus

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH CHAIRMAN
                                        ..... Respondent
                  Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioner Vinod Krishan Aggarwal, in this writ petition, partly

impugns order dated 18th October, 2016, passed by the Principal Bench of

the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short), disposing of OA

No.2676/2015.

2. The petitioner, an employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation, has

been chargesheeted in FIR No. 291/2009 dated 19 th November, 2009, Police

Station Geeta Colony (Crime) under Sections

323/341/325/307/147/148/149/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As he

was arrested and had remained under detention for more than 48 hours, he

was suspended. The said suspension had continued till 16 th July, 2011. He

had retired from service on 31st July, 2014.

3. The prosecution is still pending and the final verdict is not known.

The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not entitled to

withhold pension or gratuity as the prosecution pursuant to the chargesheet

filed under FIR No. 291/2009, Police Station-Geeta Colony (Crime) does

not constitute misconduct as defined in clause 19 of the Standing Order

Governing Conduct of Employees of D.T.C. It is submitted that there is no

allegation that any pecuniary or financial loss has been caused to the

respondent Corporation.

4. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as per the petitioner, are

applicable. Sub-rule (4) to Rule 9 states that in case a Government servant,

who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise has

departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings pending against him, shall

be paid provisional pension. In case of departmental proceedings, the

requirements of sub-rule (2) have to be satisfied. The expression "judicial

proceedings" for the purpose of criminal proceedings means the date on

which the complaint or the report of the police officer, of which cognizance

has been taken by the Magistrate, is made. The said Rule has to be read

harmoniously with Rule 69 relating to payment of provisional pension

where judicial proceedings are pending.

5. In the light of the aforesaid statutory position, we do not think that the

petitioner can be allowed to make any claim other than the claim for

provisional pension. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on

any other matter or issue decided vide order dated 18 th October, 2016, which

the Delhi Transport Corporation, if deemed appropriate, may challenge.

Any such challenge raised would be examined as per law.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MARCH 07, 2017 NA