ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. What falls for decision – making in this Writ Petition is the interpretation of the words “after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings” occurring in Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the Rules’).
2. The petitioner while serving as Accounts Officer in Telecom Department retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the afternoon of 31st January, 2002. Even before that date, in July 1993, the petitioner was trapped in a criminal case and he was prosecuted by the Special CBI Court, Bangalore in C.C. No. 127 of 1994. The Special Court after trial convicted the petitioner and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years on each count by its judgment and order dated 31.12.2001. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2002 to this Court. The said appeal is admitted and pending. It is stated that the sentence is suspended by this Court.
3. After the conviction of the petitioner by the CBI Court, the President of India invoking his power under Rule 9(1) of the Rules, has forfeited the pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner. Questioning the said action of the President of India, the petitioner instituted Original Application No. 486 of 2003 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal having opined that since the CBI Court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for a period of three years, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has preferred the appeal to this Court and that the sentence has been suspended by this Court, it is the power of the President of India under Rule 9(1) of the Rules to forfeit the pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner, dismissed the application. Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. We have heard Sri P.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. Sri Kulkarni would contend that the Tribunal has not construed the provisions of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69 of the Rules correctly and if the provision of Clause (b) is properly construed, it would not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that the petitioner is entitled to receive the provisional pension even during the pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court and for that matter till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings finally.
6. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel, per contra, would contend that the words after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings as occurring in Clause (b) of Rule 69(1) would be applicable only to the original proceedings and they cannot be made applicable to the further proceedings by way of first appeal to this Court or further appeal to the Apex Court. According to the learned CGSC, such interpretation would be a reasonable interpretation and that would take care of the interest of the State in the event of delinquent failing in the appeal before this Court or further appeal to the Apex Court.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the point that arises for decision is whether the entitlement of the petitioner to receive provisional pension in terms of Rule 69 of the Rules is limited to the pendency of the proceedings before the original Court or that entitlement continues till the finality is reached by way of appeal to this Court or further appeal to the Supreme Court.
8. In order to answer this point, it would be beneficial to first notice the provisions of Rule 69 of the Rules itself. Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69 reads as follows:-
“69(1)(b):-
The provisional pension shall be authorised by the accounts officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement upto and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.”
The provision of Clause (b) is quite clear, plain, unambiguous and does not admit more than one meaning. Clause (b) in unmistakable terms directs that a delinquent employee will be entitled to provisional pension from the date of retirement upto and including the date on which the final order that may be made by the competent authority, after the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. The key words for our purpose are ‘after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings’. The interpretation suggested by the learned CGSC for the department is not acceptable to us for more than one reason. It is well settled that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. Since the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the CBI Court has preferred appeal to this Court and the same is pending, we have to necessarily hold that the proceedings are pending. Undoubtedly, the pendency of the appeal in this Court is a judicial proceedings. It also needs to be noticed that the final order envisaged under Rule 9(1) of the Rules in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69 of the Rules is required to be passed by the President of India only after the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. In the instant case, since the judicial proceedings, we mean the launching of the prosecution against the petitioner have not been concluded so far in terms of finality, the President of India invoking the power conferred upon him under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 would not arise. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the President of India in the purported exercise of power under Rule 9(1) of the Rules should be condemned as one without authority of law inasmuch as the necessary condition to invoke that power did not exist as on the date of the impugned order nor does it exist as on today also.
9. This takes us to the next question whether the President of India is justified in forfeiting the gratuity payable to the petitioner? In terms of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 69 of the Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to be paid gratuity inasmuch as judicial proceedings are pending and the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the original Court. However, we hasten to add that the President of India ought to have awaited the result of the appeal pending before this Court or in the event of further appeal to the Apex Court till the result of such appeal before passing final order in exercise of the power conferred upon him in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules. Without awaiting for the finality of the proceedings, the President of India has issued the order forfeiting the gratuity also. The only thing he could have done under the circumstances is that he ought to have deferred the payment of gratuity. We clarify this position and direct accordingly.
10. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the impugned order of the Tribunal.
i) Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside;
ii) Original Application is allowed in part and Annexure-A8 dated 17.7.2003 is set aside subject to the observations made above.
iii) The provisional pension withheld so far by the department to be paid to the petitioner forthwith.
No costs.