ABDUL LATHEEF V P vs M/O LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member The short question that posed for consideration in this Original Application is whether the respondents are justified in truncating the provisional pension granted to the applicant pending consideration of the Criminal Appeal filed by him against the conviction passed by the Special Court.

2. The applicant is the former Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, hereinafter referred to as the Organisation, who retired from service from the Regional Office, Ernakulam on 30.11.2016 on attaining the age of 60 years. He had started service as an L.D.Clerk in the organisation on 02.01.1979, then was promoted as U.D.Clerk in 1982. Later, he became Section Supervisor and finally Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer in 2009. He claims that he had been discharging his duties with impeccable honesty and rectitude. However, initially, he had to face a disciplinary proceedings alleging that he had violated Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, for which action was initiated against him, which ended in imposing a

Deepa S

cut in 15% pension for a period of five years. A criminal case also was registered against him, which was a trap case initiated by the CBI, Ernakulam wing; after trial he was found guilty and convicted by Annexure- A5 judgment. Now, he has preferred Criminal Appeal against the said conviction before the Honb'le High Court and the High Court has stayed the sentence through Annexure-A6 order dated 29.09.2022.

3. The reduction in pension consequent to the disciplinary proceedings has not been implemented so far. However, after the conviction by the Criminal Court, he was served with a show cause notice as to why his pension and gratuity shall not be cut by 50%. He gave appropriate reply to the same. However, by Annexure-A1 order dated 09.01.2025 the 1st respondent has rejected the representation and ordered to withhold pension and gratuity by 50%, which is the subject matter of challenge in this O.A.

4. Applicant seeks to call for the records leading to Annexure-A1 and to quash the same, to declare that Annexure-A1 is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law and ultravires the statutory provisions and to direct the respondents to continue to pay provisional pension as if Annexure-A1 had not been issued at all.

Deepa S

5. Admittedly, the Annexure-A2 order cutting pension by 15% has not been implemented. However, after the conviction, he was served with a show cause notice and thereafter, Annexure-A1 order was passed, which, according to the applicant, is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law. According to him, against Annexure-A5 conviction he has preferred appeal, which is a continuation of the trial proceedings and since the criminal proceeding is pending, there is no provision to withhold provisional pension, which is to be paid as per the statute, during the pendency of the judicial proceedings. Thus Annexure-A1 is violative of the constitutional provisions enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21.

6. Without prejudice to the contentions he says that he has already been imposed with a penalty through a departmental action for a particular offence. Merely because he has been convicted for the very same offence, the applicant cannot be imposed with another penalty, that would constitute double jeopardy.

7. On behalf of the respondents, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) of the Regional Office filed reply contending that the O.A. is not maintainable. According to her, various authorities of the

Deepa S

Hon'ble Supreme Court are available holding that conviction of a Criminal Court after departmental action does not amount to double punishment, because the purpose and scope of two proceedings are different, that the departmental proceedings do not come within the scope of the words 'prosecuted and punished' used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution which apply to a proceedings before a Court of law or a judicial Tribunal only. She has also quoted the decisions in Maqbol Hussain v. State of Bombay [AIR 1953 SC 325] and S.A.Venkataraman v. Union of India [AIR 1954 SC 375]. The Regional Director has set out the circumstance by which disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant. While working as Enforcement Officer at SRO, Kozhikode, he committed gross misconduct by visiting an establishment by name M/S Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., located at Changaramkulam in Malappuram district on 21.03.2013. The said visit was without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Neither he had informed the office nor did he make any such entry in his revised tour programme for the month of March, 2013. He also failed to submit his Inspection Report of the establishment within five days of the date of inspection in violation of para 14.3 of Chapter V of Manual of Inspectors. Thus the departmental disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him

Deepa S

under Rule 10 of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 vide charge memo dated 30.06.2016 for the procedural lapses. Later, he was convicted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the CBI Special Court vide judgment dt. 14.09.2022 in CC No.1/2014. That case was registered after laying a trap by the CBI and arresting him; while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from one K.M.Ashraf as a motive for showing official favour, by not issuing further official notice and initiating further proceedings thereby no hindrance be caused to the proposed sale of the said Afara Hospital (P) Ltd to M/s Sunrise Group of Hospitals, Ernakulam. After the applicant was convicted by the CBI Judge, a memorandum was issued on 27.06.2023 to the applicant under Rule 15(i) of the EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971 and under Rule 8 read with Rule 7 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 2021, by the Secretary to Government by exercising powers proposing to impose the penalty of withholding the pension and gratuity by fifty per cent.

8. Further, it is submitted that both the disciplinary proceedings and conviction by the Criminal Court are different and separate. The conviction stands even now. For the reason that, he had preferred an appeal and obtained a stay of the execution of the sentence imposed on

Deepa S

him, does not make any difference because the conviction continues as such. An appeal against conviction or even a stay on the sentence will have no effect unless the conviction itself is stayed. Thus the respondents have prayed for dismissing the O.A.

9. We heard Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri.Sreedutt S.learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Prenjith Kumar K.S., learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

10. Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the applicant has contended that on the date of his retirement on superannuation on 30.11.2016, both the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were pending and initially, by Annexure-A4 order dated 14.05.2019, 15% of his pension was cut for five years, that order has become final, though it is not yet implemented. He also said that the Criminal Appeal is a continuation of the trial proceedings. He has already preferred Appeal against Annexure-A5 conviction and the High Court has entertained the appeal, suspended his sentence and pending consideration of the criminal appeal, there is no justification in truncating his pension. The learned counsel asserted that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, he

Deepa S

is entitled to get provisional pension as enjoined under Rule 8(4)(b) of the CCS(Pension) Rules 2021, which cannot be cut short by the respondents till the appeal is decided by the High Court. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Guwahati High Court in WP(C) No.5034/2020 [On the death of Anil Mahanta his wife v. The State of Assam and others] and the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.5938/2004 dated 23.09.2004 [N.K.Suparna v. Union of India and others (MANU/KA/0388/2004].

11. On the other hand, Sri.Prenjith Kumar has submitted that the said conviction still stands, which has not been stayed or revised by the High Court. Merely for the reason that the sentence is suspended, the applicant cannot claim that he is entitled to get full pension, gratuity etc. Supporting his contentions, he has placed reliance on the decisions in Union of India and others v. Ramesh Kumar [(1997) 7 SCC 514], Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. B.Jagjeevan Rao [(2014) 13 SCC 239], Usha v. Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation [2000 KHC 49], the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.18341/2023 [Badelal Pathak v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others] and the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 09.05.2023 in WP(C)

Deepa S

No.6022/2023 [Janak Raj v. Union of India and others]

12. According to Sri.Prenjith Kumar, the decision of the Guwahati High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant stands challenged in Writ Appeal whereas the Karnataka High Court has not considered all the relevant aspects in proper perspective like the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the pointed consideration of the relevant issue as done in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

13. There is no dispute on the facts of the case. The applicant while working as the Enforcement Officer/Accounts Officer in the Organisation had to face disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings. He had retired from service on 30.11.2016 while both the proceedings were pending against him. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on the following two Articles of charges. “ARTICLE-I That Shri V.P Abdul Latheef, while working as Enforcement Officer at SRO, Kozhikode committed grave mis-conduct in as much as he visited, inspected and collected the records of the establishment, M/s. Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., Changaramkulam, Malappuram Dist. on 21.03.2013. A notice bearing No. KR/KK/17171/EO/KKD/2012- 2013 dated nil was served by him upon the establishment M/s. Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., Changaramkulam, Malappuram District

Deepa S

with directions to produce records at his office on 28.03.2013. The receipt of the said notice was acknowledged by one Ms. Manju on 21.03.2013 in the establishment. He visited the establishment M/s. Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., without obtaining the prior permission or approval from his superior officers/competent authority and neither he had informed the office nor did he make any such entry in his Revised Tour Programme for the month of March, 2013. He did not submit his Tour Diary for the month of March, 2013 till his relief from SRO, Kozhikode on 03.04.2013. Thus he violated para (1) & (9) of Chapter-III of Manual of Inspectors and instructions contained in H.O. Circular No. Coord/11(61)2005/Adm. Ins/Cir/Part/2163-2363 dated 30.04.2009. ARTICLE-II That Shri V.P. Abdul Latheef while working as EO/AO at SRO, Kozhikode failed to submit a copy of the notice that was served on the establishment M/s. Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., Changaramkulam, Malappuram Dist. On 21.03.2013 and Shri V.P. Abdul Latheef also failed to submit his Inspection Report in respect of his inspection of the establishment M/s. Arafa Hospital (P) Ltd., Changaramkulam, Malappuram Dist. to SRO, Kozhikode within 5 days of date of his inspection in compliance with the provisions under para 14. 3 of Chapter V of Manual of Inspectors. Although Shri V.P. Abdul Latheef, EO/AO, was relieved from SRO, Kozhikode vide Office Order No. 27/2013, No. KR/KK/Admn.1(1)/10/2013/1427 dated 03.04.2013 and he was directed to handover the charge to Shri P. Premakumaran, EO, Shri V.P. Abdul Latheef did not handover the 53 files which were in his custody and instead kept those files in his

Deepa S

house even after he was relieved from SRO, Kozhikode, with ulterior motive of using the information in future for his pecuniary gains. By the aforesaid act of omission and commission Shri V.P. Abdul Latheef, EO, failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of EPFO and thus thereby violated Rule 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, which are mutatis-mutandis applicable to the employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulations 18 & 22 of EPF (Officers and Employees Conditions of Services) Regulation 2008 as amended from time to time.”

14. CC 1/2014 was registered before the CBI Special Judge-II, Ernakulam after preferring a complaint by one K.M.Ashraf, who is the PW-1 in Annexure-A5 judgment, on 06.04.2013 alleging that the applicant as the Enforcement Officer of the Organisation had demanded huge amount as bribe for doing favours to the M/s.Arafa Hospital which was under an agreement for sale to M/s.Sunrise Hospital. The applicant as seen in Annexure-A2 memo of charges had allegedly paid visit to the hospital premises without intimating the higher officials in accordance with the Rules and also had failed to submit his revised tour programme for the month of March 2013 and inspection report of the establishment within five days of date of inspection in violation of paragraph 14.3 of Chapter V of the Manual of Inspectors. That prompted the respondents to initiate

Deepa S

disciplinary proceedings against him.

15. It has also come out that, in the meantime, the applicant was transferred from Kozhikode to Ernakulam and still made demand for illegal gratification for doing favours stating that the defacto complainant had failed to remit amount towards the Provident Fund etc. which they had disputed. Whatever it may be, he sought an illegal gratification of Rs.1 lakh; at last after his transfer from Kozhikode to Ernakulam, on 07.04.2013, while accepting an amount of Rs.50,000/- as bribe he was caught red handed from his residence and the bribe amount was seized from the almirah of the applicant and the said crime was registered alleging offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was found guilty, after trial for the offences; for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. For the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for three months; the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Deepa S

16. Against the said judgment he has preferred Criminal Appeal No.977/2022 before the High Court and the High Court on admitting the appeal suspended the sentence on certain conditions. After the said conviction imposed on him he was served with Annexure-A7 memo, as adverted to above. The applicant gave Annexure-A7 reply stating that the Criminal Appeal is pending, but rejecting such a plea, Annexure-A1 order has been passed on the following lines: “................AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case had proposed a tentative penalty of "withholding of pension and gratuity by fifty percent" upon Sh. V P Abdul Lateef, EO/AO (Retd.) under Rule 8 read with Rule 7 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and further provided an opportunity to submit any representation within the specified time limit vide Memorandum dated 27.06.2023. Further, Sh. VP Abdul Lateef, EO/AO (Retd.) submitted his representation dated 31.07.23. NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned after considering representation dated 31.07.23, gravity of charge, conviction of Sh. V P Abdul Lateef, EO/AO (Retd.) in the criminal case by the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge-II, CBI, Ernakulam vide judgment dated 14.09.2022, Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala order dated 29.09.2022 and facts of the matter placed on record, hereby imposes a penalty of "withholding of pension and gratuity by fifty percent" upon Sh. V P Abdul Lateef, EO/AO (Retd.) EPFO in exercise

Deepa S

of the powers vested Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 read with Rule 15(1) of EPF Staff (CCA) Rules, 1971”

17. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after having imposed a cut in pension of 15% for five years it is illegal to pass Annexure-A1 order withholding his pension and gratuity by 50%. Thus it is submitted that there is double jeopardy in this matter. But, having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we have little doubt that such a contention cannot be accepted, mainly for three reasons. First and foremost is that it is the admitted case of the applicant that even though Annexure-A4 order was passed on conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings deducting his pension by 15% for five years, that has not been implemented. The applicant did not prefer any appeal against that order. But, such an order has not been implemented and no cut has been effected in the pension of the applicant following Annexure-A4.

18. Secondly, as rightly pointed out, both the proceedings are distinct and different. Annexure-A1 proceedings as seen from Articles I and II charges was initiated on account of the alleged acts of misconduct on his part after visiting the premises of the said Arafa hospital on 21.03.2013

Deepa S

without intimating the higher authorities. The applicant also failed to submit the tour diary within five days of the said visit. From the subsequent conduct of the applicant also his intention was different and was to get illegal gratification from the hospital authorities. It is very clear that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after having revealed, subsequent to his arrest in the criminal case that the respondents had realised that the applicant had ventured to visit the hospital premises and also demanded illegal gratification from the PW1 in Annexure-A5. Moreover, as stated by the respondents, based on authorities, those are different proceedings and the fact that he has been found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings has no effect in the subsequent criminal proceedings and vice versa. For these reasons the contention that there is double jeopardy cannot be accepted.

19. Moreover, respondents have also relied on the O.M. dated 21.07.2016 issued by the DoPT in the matter of simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of departmental proceedings and various guidelines have been issued on the basis of authorities issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court including one under the oftquoted decision in K.C.Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584].

Deepa S

20. The assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, so long as the Criminal Appeal is pending, the respondents are not justified in deducting his pension by 50% is illegal and against Rule 8(4) of the CCS(Penision) Rules. But in the light of authorities relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, we are unable to sustain the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is the settled proposition that, once a punishment following conviction is imposed, merely for the reason that the sentence stands suspended, the convict cannot take the benefit of such suspension unless the conviction also is suspended. Here, admittedly, the sentence alone has been suspended and Annexure-A7 memo was issued in the backdrop of Annexure-A5 judgment of the Special Court for CBI cases, Ernakulam.

21. Admittedly, the Single Bench judgment of the Guwahati High Court in WP(C) No.5034/2020 is challenged before the Division Bench in appeal. Similarly, the Karnataka High Court has not considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous cases including K.C.Sareen, quoted supra. In K.C.Sareen, it is stated as follows: “.........When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until

Deepa S

he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings.”

22. In Ramesh Kumar, quoted supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “7. A bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to take action against a Govt. servant on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. The rules, however, do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentences by the Appellate Court the order of dismissal based on conviction stands obliterated and dismissed Govt. servant has to be treated under suspension till disposal of the appeal by the appellate Court. The rules also do not provide the Disciplinary Authority to await disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court filed by a Govt. servant for taking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a competent Court of law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a competent Court of law has not lost its string merely because a criminal appeal was filed by the respondent against his conviction and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the respondent on bail. This matter may be examined from another angle. Under S.389 of the Code of Criminal

Deepa S

Procedure, the appellate Court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the appellate Court suspends the execution of sentence, and grants bail to an accused the effect of the order is that sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed, or kept in abeyance during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under S.389 Cr.P.C. an accused avoids undergoing sentence pending criminal appeal. However, the conviction continues and is not obliterated and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a Govt. servant on a misconduct which led to his conviction by the Court of law does not lose its efficacy merely because Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence...........”

23. This proposition has been reiterated in V.Jagjeevan Rao by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also in Usha, quoted supra by the Kerala High Court.

24. In Writ Petition No.18341/2023, the very question considered by us was agitated before the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where the Court considered whether the petitioner is entitled for provisional pension merely on the ground of pendency of Criminal Appeal against his conviction. Madhya Pradesh High Court found the answer against the petitioner and said, relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C.Sareen etc. that when there is no stay of conviction,

Deepa S

then the disqualification attached to the conviction must follow. Thus such a contention has been answered against the petitioner.

25. As we noticed earlier, these vital aspects were not considered by the Karnataka and Guwahati High Courts in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant.

26. Moreover, it is seen from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Janak Raj, quoted supra, the Bench had considered N.K.Suparna of the Karnataka High Court and held that it cannot be followed since it did not receive the stamp of approval of the Supreme Court.

27. After evaluating the circumstances, authorities and the dicta on the point, we have no doubt that the respondents are justified in truncating the pension of the applicant since he stands convicted. So long as the conviction remains, merely for the reason that his sentence was suspended, he cannot claim that he should be paid provisional pension, which in effect is full pension, till the termination of the Criminal Appeal. Therefore, the point is answered against the applicant.

28. It goes without saying that, if the applicant succeeds in the criminal proceedings, then necessarily the respondents will have to review

Deepa S

the stand taken through Annexure-A1 or Annexure-A4. Subject to the above, the Original Application is dismissed. No costs. (Dated this the 4th November, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL

JUSTICE K. HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2026.11.10 16:23:19+05'30' Deepa S

List of Annexures Annexure-A1: A true copy of the order bearing No.C-11025/04/2023-SS- I(EPFO) dated 09.01.2025, issued by the first respondent. Annexure-A2: A true copy of the memorandum of charges bearing No.Vig.XII (02)2013/Vol.II/DP/77 dated 30.06.2016, issued by the 2nd respondent. Annexure-A3: A true copy of the show cause memorandum bearing No.C- 11016/12/2017-SS-I dated 20.07.2018, issued by the Under Secretary to Government of India. Annexure-A4: A true copy of the order bearing No.C-11016/12/2017-SS-I dated 14.05.2019, issued by the third respondent. Annexure-A5: A true copy of the judgment in Calender Case No.1/2014 dated 14.09.2022 rendered by the learned Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam. Annexure-A6: A true copy of the order in Crl.M.Appl. No.1/2022 in Crl.Appeal No.977 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Annexure-A7: A true copy of the memorandum bearing No.C- 11025/04/2023-SS-I(EPFO) dated 27.06.2023, issued by the third respondent. Annexure-A8: A true copy of the reply submitted by the applicant dated 31.07.2023 addressed to the first respondent.

*******

Deepa S