Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 22: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that once criminal proceedings are going on against the petitioner he cannot seek release of full pension at this stage.
The judgment has been passed in a petition filed by one Mustaq Ahmed Khan challenging order dated 03.10.2023 whereby penalty of compulsory retirement with no effect on his pension/gratuity has been imposed upon him.
As per case of the petitioner, he was working in paramilitary force and later on superannuated in the year 1999. He got re-engaged with the respondents in ex-serviceman category in the year 2003 and was posted at International Airport Srinagar. It was pleaded that the petitioner had entered into wedlock with one Sarwar Jan that ended in divorce in terms of divorce deed dated 20.08.2017.
Later, petitioner entered into a fresh wedlock with another lady namely Sajida Alia Tabasum as per Muslim law. However, due to ill health of his second wife, she left the petitioner and he had to divorce her as well.
It was submitted that one of the neighbours of the petitioner lodged a false and frivolous FIR against him before Police Station Kupwara and he was arrested in the case. Pursuant to registration of FIR and his arrest, the petitioner was suspended where after he was compulsorily retired from service in terms of impugned order dated 03.10.2023 though the actual date of his retirement is 30.11.2025.
According to the petitioner, he approached the respondents for reinstating him but his request was not considered. It was claimed that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing by the respondents nor any enquiry was conducted against him.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, “in the face of circumstances, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence or to examine/cross-examine the witnesses would have been an empty formality”, adding “even when the petitioner was asked to file his representation against the enquiry report, he has not challenged the finding of the Enquiry Officer. However, he has taken a stand that now he has entered into a compromise with the second wife who had filed the complaint against him, as such, the case against him be closed”.
“In the face of unequivocal admission of the petitioner to the charge leveled against him, the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, cannot be interfered with”, High Court said, adding “so far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-payment of pension is concerned, in this regard, the respondents have clearly stated due to pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.47/2023 registered with Police Station Kupwara, provisional pension has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner”.
“Once criminal proceedings are going on against the petitioner, he cannot seek release of full pension at this stage. The respondents have, therefore, rightly resorted to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 by sanctioning provisional pension in favour of the petitioner”, High Court said while dismissing the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
