Gauhati High Court
Padma Giri vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 29 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010134522022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4630/2022
PADMA GIRI
W/O- SHRI GOUTAM GIRI,
R/O- SHIVAJI NAGAR, H.K. ROAD, RANGIRKHARI,
P.O. SILCHAR, PIN- 788005, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001.
2:THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (ESTT.) BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE
BHARAT SANCHAR BHAWAN JANPATH NEW DELHI- 110001.
3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM ASSAM TELECOM CIRCLE
BSNL BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.
4:THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (DOT CELL) O/O THE CHIEF GENERAL
MANAGER BSNL ASSAM TELECOM CIRCLE GUWAHATI- 781001.
5:THE CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATION ACCOUNTS TELECOM ASSAM
CIRCLE BSNL BHAWAN 5TH FLOOR PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001.
6:THE JT. CONTROLLER OF COMMUNICATION ACCOUNTS
TELECOM ASSAM CIRCLE BSNL BHAWAN 3RD FLOOR PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781001.
7:THE GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL SILCHAR
CACHAR ASSAM SILCHAR- 788001.
8:THE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE-I) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SANCHAR
BHAWAN 20 ASHOKA ROAD NEW DELHI
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 29-07-2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5, 6
& 7.
By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original
Application No.040/00025/2019. The short facts, which arise out of this writ
petition, are enumerated as under.
The petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1, i.e. the
Department of Telecommunications, and was serving as a Telecom
Operator. She was appointed on 20.07.1966 and finally retired on
31.03.2006. On the ground that she has been paid only 80% of the GPF,
Leave Salary and Gratuity and that her terminal benefits have not been
given on the ground that the Vigilance Clearance Certificate was awaited,
the petitioner earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench, Guwahati by way of filing Original Application No.040/
00122/2017, which came to be disposed of on 21.05.2018. By the said
order, the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to complete the
process of papers of pensionary benefits within a period of 3(three)
months.
Page No.# 3/5
The record further shows that on verifying the facts, the
Department found that the petitioner was guilty of a grave misconduct and
hence as per Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which inter alia
provides that if a person is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of
grave misconduct, the pension can be withheld or withdrawn. As the
pensionary benefits were not granted, the petitioner again approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati by filing an
original application being Original Application No.040/00025/2019.
It is also a matter of fact that the petitioner was prosecuted in the
Court of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati under Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1(one) year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One
Thousand) vide order of conviction dated 03.10.2001 passed in Special
Case No.23(C)/1992. It is also a matter of fact that the petitioner
challenged the said order of conviction and sentence by way of filing a
criminal appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No.375/2001, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment & order dated 09.04.2010.
The petitioner challenged the same before the Apex Court by way
of filing SLP (Crl.) No.1740/2010, which came to be dismissed by the Apex
Court by judgment & order dated 06.10.2015 confirming the order of
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam,
Guwahati.
The Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 and also considering the fact that the petitioner had
been convicted for an offence under the provisions of the Prevention of
Page No.# 4/5
Corruption Act, 1988 dismissed the application and observed thus:-
"13. After careful consideration of the submissions from both sides,
it is clear that the applicant convicted by Criminal/Trial Court which
have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court even by the
Hon'ble Highest Court by dismissing the SLP. Under these
circumstances, the case definitely attracts the provisions of Rule 8 & 9
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 under which the respondent authorities
are entitled to examine and take a decision in regard to the entitlement
of pension and other terminal benefits of the applicant. Inspite of the
fact that the applicant has given already 80% amount of GPF, Leave
Salary and Gratuity, the respondent authorities are entitled to take a
final view on the issue.
14. Accordingly, O.A. is found to be devoid of merit and hereby
dismissed. The respondent authorities are entitled to go ahead with the
Memorandum No.9-28/ 2018-Vig-I dated 15th December, 2021,
Annexure-R/6 to the written argument filed by the respondent Nos.1, 5
& 6 to finalise the case of the applicant, if not already done."
In addition to that, the petitioner has also brought on record that
pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal, more particularly in
Paragraph 14 as quoted hereinabove, the authorities have already initiated
actions and a Memorandum has been issued on 04.07.2022 and the issue is
pending.
Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
authorities has contended that the said proceedings are pending and a
decision shall be taken as early as possible.
In totality of facts and on perusal of the impugned order, we are of
the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error much less any error
apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner having accepted that she
was convicted for a serious offence as far as a person in service is
concerned, that too under Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of
Page No.# 5/5
corruption Act, 1988 and the conviction having been confirmed right up to
the Apex Court, cannot be given any premium by exercise of jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are in total
agreement with the observations made by the Tribunal that no case for
interference is made out. However, considering the submissions made by
Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, the
respondent authorities are directed to take a decision as provided in
Paragraph 14 of the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal and in furtherance to the Memorandum dated 04.07.2022 issued
by the respondent No.1. Such decision shall be taken after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible in
accordance with law.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
