Release pension against retired excise official acquitted in graft case: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of the high court has directed the authorities to release within four weeks the entire pension and gratuity to a 73 year old retired officer of Central Excise. Justice M Nagaprasanna has further directed the authorities not to drive the petitioner Hanumanth N Karkun to the court again observing that his ‘cup of sorrow’ has come to the brim.

Hanumanth, a resident of Dharwad, had worked as Superintendent, in-charge of Central Excise, Range ‘A’, Hubballi Division. In September 2011, four months prior to his retirement, a case was registered against him for graft. The case was transferred to the CBI since he was a central government employee and a chargesheet was filed in 2013.

In the meantime, the disciplinary authority issued a charge sheet, but the enquiry officer twice held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with this and sent the matter to the UPSC, in terms of the guidelines. The UPSC advised withholding of 100% of pension and forfeiture of 100% gratuity as a measure of penalty.

Hanumanth’s appeal before the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) challenging this action is still pending. In the interregnum, Hanumanth was acquitted in the criminal case and he moved the high court questioning the order imposing penalty. The respondents argued that Hanumanth was acquitted on benefit of doubt and that the disciplinary authority has power to disagree with the report and imposed a penalty on the statutory advice of the UPSC.

Justice Nagaprasanna cited Apex Court judgements and said that when proceedings are springing out of a solitary action, acquittal in the criminal trial would ensure to the benefit of the petitioner and lead to obliteration of the penalty in the disciplinary enquiry. The court further noted that there is no provision to withhold 100% of the pension. Similarly, gratuity too cannot be withheld completely or even part of it, as it can be only on a finding that the services terminated on account of involving in an offence of moral turpitude, which is not the fact in the case at hand.

“The submission of the respondents that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending and he should await the outcome of the decision of the Appellate Authority is noted only to be rejected. The petitioner is now 73 years old. He has not seen the light of his terminal benefits, despite his retirement 13 years ago. He is left bleeding by the impugned penalty, which is worse than dismissal. If what the counsel for the petitioner submitted is considered, the ‘cup of sorrow’ of the petitioner has come to the rim. Therefore, there is no question of sending the petitioner back to the doors of the Appellate Authority,” the court said.