Ashlesha Mehta vs All India Radio on 30 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: (A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B)That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/declare that impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of order No. C-14012/2/2024-Vig., dtd. 6/08/2024, issued by the respondents, regarding imposition of penalty of withholding of 100% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to applicant and withholding of the entire gratuity due to her permanently is non-est in the eyes of law. (C) That, the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to quash and set-aside impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents regarding issuance of order No. C-14012/2/2024-Vig., dtd. 6/08/2024, issued by the respondents, regarding imposition of penalty of withholding of 100% of monthly pension otherwise admissible to applicant and withholding of the entire gratuity due to her permanently. (D) Such other and further relief/s may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as under: - 2.1 The applicant joined the department on 30.10.1993 and was working as a Transmission Executive in All India Radio. She was confirmed in service on 30.10.1995 and retired on superannuation with effect from 30.04.2023. 2.2 During her service, two criminal cases were registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the applicant and others. The present proceedings arise out of CBI Special Case No. 31 of 2009, corresponding to FIR No. RC-18(A)/2008-GNR, registered on 31.10.2008 for alleged floating of a firm, M/s Maanisha Creatives. P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No 393/2024

2.3 As far as criminal case No. 31/2009 is concerned the Sp. Judge CBI Court, Ahmedabad by its final order / decision dtd. 22/8/2023 had convicted the applicant and had passed order as under : For offences u/s 168 of I.P.C., Simple Imprisonment of Three (3) months and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo further Simple Imprisonment for seven

(7) days.

For offences u/s 420 r/w 120-B of I.P.C., Simple Imprisonment of Two (2) years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months.

For offences u/s Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, sentenced to undergo two (2) years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) and fine of Rs.10,000/-; and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment of six (6) months.

2.4 The applicant challenged the said judgment before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat by filing Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2023. By order dated 08.08.2024, the Hon’ble High Court suspended the execution of the sentence during the pendency of the criminal appeal and directed that the applicant be released on bail. 2.5 In the meantime, the respondents issued a memorandum dated 07.05.2024 under Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, read with Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, proposing action in view of the applicant’s conviction. The applicant submitted her written representation dated 02.07.2024, opposing the proposed action and raising, inter alia, the grounds of suspension of sentence, double jeopardy, financial hardship and the need for a personal hearing. 2.6 After considering the representation, the competent authority passed the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, withholding 100% of the applicant’s monthly pension and the entire gratuity payable to her permanently. Hence, the present OA.

3. Submissions on behalf of the applicant P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No 393/2024

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had requested for an opportunity of personal hearing to explain her case, but no such opportunity was granted before passing the

3.2 It was further contended that the applicant has challenged her conviction before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension of Sentence) No. 1 of 2023 in R/Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2023 and that the execution of the sentence has been suspended by order dated 08.08.2024 and observed as under: -

“5…….. And without entering into the merits of the case, this court is of the opinion that the application requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed. The execution of the sentence in the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.08.2023 passed in CBI Special Case No. 31/2009 by the learned Special Judge CBI, Court No.3, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is suspended during pendency of the Criminal Appeal and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand Only) with surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and on the following conditions that the applicants;”

Learned counsel argued that the respondents ought to have considered the effect of the said order and refrained from imposing the extreme penalty of permanent withholding of the entire pension and gratuity while the criminal appeal remains pending. 3.3 Learned counsel also argued that the applicant had already suffered a penalty of withholding 10% of her monthly pension for a period of one year pursuant to the departmental proceedings concluded by the order dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure A/4). The subsequent penalty imposed by the impugned order amounts to double punishment for the same underlying conduct and is impermissible. 3.4 It was further submitted that pension is an important source of livelihood after retirement and that permanent deprivation of the entire pension and gratuity causes severe financial hardship. P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No 393/2024

Learned counsel contended that the competent authority ought to have considered the applicant’s financial circumstances, the nature of the alleged misconduct, the pendency of the criminal appeal and the proportionality of the proposed penalty before passing the

3.5 On the above grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prayed that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 be quashed and set aside.

4. Submissions on behalf of the respondents 4.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the OA and submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and after following the prescribed procedure. 4.2 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant was convicted by the competent criminal court in CBI Special Case No. 31 of 2009 by judgment dated 22.08.2023. The conviction concerns offences involving abuse of official position and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to the respondents, the conviction and the gravity of the misconduct warranted action under Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. 4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was issued a show-cause memorandum dated 07.05.2024 and was afforded an opportunity to submit her explanation. The applicant availed herself of that opportunity by submitting a detailed written representation dated 02.07.2024. The competent authority duly considered the representation, including the objections relating to the suspension of sentence, alleged double jeopardy and financial hardship, before passing the impugned order. 4.4 It was argued that the suspension of execution of a sentence by an appellate court does not set aside or nullify the conviction recorded by the trial court. As the conviction has not been overturned or set P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No 393/2024

aside, and only the operation of the sentence has been stayed till final disposal of the appeal, the respondents were entitled to take consequential action after consideration in accordance with Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, read with Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. As per Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, when a pensioner is convicted/found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in judicial proceedings, the competent authority can withhold or withdraw pension and/or gratuity permanently, in light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. Since the Appointing Authority in respect of the post from which the applicant, a Group ‘B’ government servant, retired was an authority subordinate to President, the competent authority to take necessary action under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, is Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 4.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the earlier penalty of withholding 10% of the applicant’s monthly pension for one year was imposed in separate departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The penalty under challenge, on the other hand, was imposed in consequence of the applicant’s criminal conviction. The two proceedings have distinct legal bases and purposes, and the subsequent action cannot be invalidated merely because an earlier departmental penalty had been imposed. 4.6 It was also contended that the amended Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 empowers the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension and gratuity, either in full or in part, where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in judicial or departmental proceedings. The Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Competent Authority, imposed the said penalty after taking into consideration her written representation/contention of Interim Relief granted by P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No 393/2024

Court, Double Jeopardy and financial stress which were specifically addressed/examined and rejected. 4.7 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the approval for grant of provisional pension to the Applicant was received vide letter dated 19.07.2023. Accordingly, the Applicant was entitled to provisional pension calculated at 50% of her last basic pay of ₹94,100/- plus Dearness Allowance at the applicable rate of 42%, amounting to ₹66,811/- per month. 4.8 It is further submitted that, vide Order dated 01.06.2023, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting directed withholding of 10% of the Applicant’s monthly pension. However, no deduction was made from the pension paid to the Applicant for the period from May 2023 to August 2024. The pension was regularly disbursed for the period from May 2023 to August 2024. 4.9 It is also submitted that, pursuant to the Memorandum dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Vigilance Section, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, a penalty of withholding 100% of the Applicant’s monthly pension was imposed with effect from September 2024. Therefore, the Respondents submit that the pension payments were made in accordance with the applicable provisional pension arrangements, and the subsequent withholding of pension was pursuant to the aforesaid memorandum. 4.10 Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Tribunal and the present application is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law.

5. Applicant has filed rejoinder and submitted the Applicant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, CBI vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Special Case No. 31/2009, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 07.05.2024 under Rule 19(i) of the CCS P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No 393/2024

(CCA) Rules, 1965, proposing punishment on the basis of the said conviction. 5.1 The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 02.07.2024 to the show-cause notice. However, the respondents failed to consider the grounds and submissions raised therein and passed the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 without due application of mind. The Applicant had also brought to the notice of the respondents the filing of an appeal and miscellaneous application challenging the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat allowed the Applicant’s miscellaneous application and stayed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court. 5.2 In these circumstances, the applicant contends that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 is arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the separate penalty order dated 25.09.2024, arising out of the memorandum/charge-sheet dated 11.09.2009, is already under challenge in O.A. No. 474/2024 and is distinct from the grievance raised in the present OA.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The principal issue that arises for our consideration is whether the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, whereby the respondents have ordered permanent withholding of 100% of the applicant’s monthly pension and the entire gratuity, warrants interference by this Tribunal.

8. It is an admitted position that the applicant was convicted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. 3, Ahmedabad, vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 in Special Case No. 31/2009. The applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, which, by order dated 08.08.2024, suspended the execution of the sentence during the pendency of the P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No 393/2024

appeal and ordered her release on bail. However, the order, as reproduced in the pleadings, does not indicate that the conviction itself was stayed or set aside. Therefore, mere suspension of the execution of the sentence cannot be treated as nullification of the conviction recorded by the trial court.

9. As regards the challenge to the impugned order on the ground of denial of a personal hearing, the record indicates that the respondents issued a show-cause memorandum dated 07.05.2024 and that the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 02.07.2024. The respondents maintain that the representation, including the grounds relating to suspension of sentence, double jeopardy and financial hardship, was duly considered by the competent authority. In the absence of material establishing that the prescribed procedure was violated or that the applicant’s defence was not considered, the mere fact that a separate personal hearing was not granted would not be sufficient to invalidate the

10. The applicant has also contended that the impugned action amounts to double punishment, as an earlier order dated 01.06.2023 provided for withholding 10% of her monthly pension for a period of one year. However, the respondents have explained that the earlier penalty arose from separate departmental proceedings, whereas the impugned order was passed in consequence of the applicant’s criminal conviction. The two actions, having been initiated on distinct legal grounds, cannot be held to constitute double punishment merely because both affect the applicant’s pensionary benefits. Nevertheless, the legality of each action must be assessed with reference to its respective statutory basis.

11. We further observe that pension and gratuity are valuable retirement benefits, and an order permanently depriving a pensioner of such benefits must strictly conform to the applicable P ANUKUMA

::10 :: OA No 393/2024

statutory provisions. Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, as amended, empowers the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension and gratuity, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The authority exercising such power must act within its jurisdiction, consider the relevant material and record a legally sustainable decision.

12. The main contention of the applicant is that, by the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Application (For Suspension of Sentence) No. 1 of 2023 in R/Criminal Appeal No. 2168 of 2023, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has stayed her conviction, and that the respondents therefore could not have imposed the penalty of withholding 100% of her pension. A plain reading of the operative portion of the said order, extracted in para 3.2 above, shows that the Hon’ble High Court, “without entering into the merits of the case”, has suspended only “the execution of the sentence” during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal and ordered her release on bail. The order neither stays nor sets aside the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, CBI, by judgment dated 22.08.2023, and no order staying the conviction has been placed before us. The assertion in the rejoinder that the conviction has been stayed is, therefore, not borne out by the order itself. Suspension of the execution of sentence only defers the undergoing of the sentence; the conviction continues to operate until it is set aside in appeal. The conviction of the applicant, including under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thus subsists, and it is a finding of guilt in judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 8 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. It may also be noted that the order of the Hon’ble High Court suspending the sentence was passed on 08.08.2024, i.e., two days after the impugned order dated 06.08.2024. On the date the impugned order was passed, therefore, the conviction stood without even the sentence having been suspended, and the subsequent suspension of P ANUKUMA

::11 :: OA No 393/2024

the sentence cannot affect the validity of an order already passed. The respondents were, therefore, entitled to take action under Rule 8 on the basis of that conviction.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, withholding 100% of the applicant’s monthly pension and the entire gratuity permanently, has been passed in accordance with law and calls for no interference. The same is upheld.

14. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. MA Pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA