Charges of Cruelty & Dowry Death Have No Nexus With Official Performance Of Govt. Employee; It's Not A Ground For Suspension Of Retiral Benefits: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that alleged charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC do not have reasonable nexus with the performance of the official duties of a Government Employee, and therefore not a valid ground for suspension of the retiral benefits.
The Court directed that the retiral/pensionary benefits due qua the Government Employee (petitioner) be released to his legal heirs. The Court had to determine whether the retiral benefits, awarded at the time of superannuation could be subject to suspension upon an alleged criminal offence, even when the said offence was not related to the official discharge of the duties.
A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “That this Court, considering the ratio encapsulated in SBCWP No. 14891/2023 titled as Mahesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan is of the opinion that the alleged charges pertaining to a family dispute or any other dispute which does not have reasonable nexus with performance of official duties, is not a valid ground for suspension of the retiral benefits of the petitioner.”
Advocate Madhu Sudan Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Mohammed Akbar Khan represented the State.
The petitioner's case revolved around the cessation of his provisional pension which was stopped by the Government of Rajasthan without providing him an opportunity to be heard. This action was based on Rule 6(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 (Rules), which permitted the withholding of pension if a pensioner was convicted of a serious crime or found guilty of grave misconduct.
The petitioner's daughter-in-law had earlier committed suicide. This led to criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC against the petitioner and his family. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. However, this conviction was later suspended upon appeal.
“The provisions of Rule 6 per se also mandate ‘conviction’ qua the alleged offence. Whereas, in the instant matter, it is evident that the said conviction order was suspended,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Bench held, “Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that Rule 6 and 7 of the Pension Rules, do not have any relevance in the instant matter, rather are misinterpreted by the concerned respondents-authorities.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Raghuveer Narayan v. The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:22884)