Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

Sharma, J.

1. The appellant got superannuated on April 30, 1995. The State Government granted him provisional pension vide order dated August 26, 1996 under Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Thereafter learned Judge A.C.D. Cases Jaipur City convicted and sentenced the appellant on Sept. 15, 1999 under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Criminal case No. 3/95. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant were ordered to be suspended by the High Court under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. in an appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Judge ACD Cases.

2. In view of the aforequoted conviction of the appellant the State Government decided to withhold the cent per cent pension of the appellant invoking Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1958 (for short CCA Rules) and referred the matter for approval to Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer and after receiving Commission's approval passed an order on November 16, 2000 imposing penalty to withhold cent per cent pension of the appellant. When no action was taken on the representation, the appellant instituted the writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide order dated August 2, 2001 dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

3. Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of the Supreme Court in Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang (1) indicated that the appellate court may suspend the order of conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. where it is capable of execution during the pendency of appeal but the attention of the appellate court must be specifically invited towards the consequences likely to fall and the appellate court is under an obligation to support its order 'for reasons to be recorded in writing.'

But in respect of corrupt public servant the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued specific directions not to suspend his conviction during the pendency of the appeal K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I. Chandigarh (2), thus -

'....the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspended the order of conviction during the pendency o the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sub-lime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under-disability of the conviction in spite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision.'

4. As the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 his conviction could not have been suspended in view of the aforequoted mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of Rule 19 of the CCA Rules are not applicable to retired Government servant and he is not covered under the definition of Government servant in view of Rule 2(1), suffice it to say that he can invite the attention of Government towards this legal aspect by filing review petition. If the appellant chooses to file review petition he shall also be at liberty to make submission in respect of Rule 170 of RSR 1951.

6. In view of what we have discussed hereinabove we do not find any merit in this appeal, it stands accordingly dismissed.