Telangana High Court
Union Of India vs Ch. Ganganna on 23 January, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
W.P.No.1814 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2024 passed in
O.A.No.404 of 2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal'), the present writ
petition has been filed.
2. Heard Smt. T.Manjula, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the petitioners-BSNL.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent
was working as Superintendent and disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against the 1st respondent alleging that he was
involved in misappropriation of funds to a tune of
Rs.96,603/-. Thereafter, a case in Cr.No.83 of 2005 of
Utnoor Police Station was registered against him for the
offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and the
same was numbered as C.C.No.234 of 2007. The Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor, vide order dated
24.11.2011, acquitted the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the
same, the State has preferred Appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.57 of
2015 before the Special Judge for trial of cases under
SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad. The appellate Court allowed the criminal
Appeal vide judgment dated 26.07.2017 and convicted the 1st
respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 409
and 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months for the offence under Section 409 IPC; further
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section
420 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 1st respondent
has approached this Court by filing Crl.A.No.815 of 2017
and this Court while admitting the appeal, suspended the
sentence vide order dated 31.07.2017. After conducting a
detailed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the
enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed the
punishment of compulsory retirement against the 1st
respondent vide proceedings dated 30-11-2017. Thereafter, as
per Rule 40(3) of CCS Pension Rules, 2021, the petitioners
have granted provisional pension to the 1st respondent vide
proceedings dated 09.10.2023. However, the 1st respondent
has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.404 of 2022
seeking release of pension and pensionary benefits. Without
appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners,
the Tribunal allowed the OA vide order dated 14.08.2024 and
directed the petitioners to release provisional pension to the
1st respondent and further directed the petitioners to process
release of regular pension as and when criminal case attained
finality in favour of the 1st respondent. Hence, the present
writ petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners
had contended that since criminal proceedings are pending
against the 1st respondent, the question of granting
provisional pension does not arise. Therefore, appropriate
orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the
order passed by the Tribunal.
5. Having considered the said submissions, this Court is
of the view that admittedly, the petitioners have imposed the
punishment of compulsory retirement on the 1st respondent
vide proceedings dated 30.11.2017. When the punishment of
compulsory retirement was imposed against an employee,
then such an employee is entitled for grant of regular
pension. Admittedly, the criminal appeal filed by the 1st
respondent is pending before this Court. Pending the
criminal appeal, the 1st respondent has approached the
Tribunal seeking provisional pension. The Tribunal vide
Award dated 14.08.2024 directed the petitioners to release
provisional pension. Though the petitioners have granted
provisional pension vide proceedings dated 09.10.2023,
denied the same on the premise of pendency of criminal
appeal. We do not understand as to how the petitioners are
aggrieved by the direction given by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to grant
provisional pension. However, if criminal appeal attained
finality and if the 1st respondent is acquitted of the said
charge, he is entitled for regular pension. Therefore, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by
the Tribunal.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
________________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date: 23.01.2025
rkk
