State Can Withhold DCRG Benefits of Convicted Employee despite Pendency of Criminal Appeal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Full Bench Judgment

State Can Withhold DCRG Benefits of Convicted Employee despite Pendency of Criminal Appeal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC Full Bench Judgment

Case: Local Self Government Department vs K Chandran

Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh

Case No.: CA 7437-7438 OF 2021

Court Observation: “One can be to recover the amounts found due from the delinquent employee of any nature whatsoever after appropriate notice and proceedings. The second eventuality is if an employee is dismissed from service. It can hardly be doubted that in the second eventuality of the dismissal from service the employee would lose all retirement benefits.”

“Rule 3, Note 2, Ruling 3, and Rule 3A have to be read in conjunction as they provide for the treatment of the DCRG in case of disciplinary or judicial proceedings pending at the stage of retirement. Even in the absence of these proceedings in certain eventualities the amounts can be recovered from the DCRG.”

“We also believe that it is a very restrictive view to disburse DCRG on account of the proceedings against a pensioner coming to an end, even where a conviction has arisen. This is especially so where the convicted person has availed of the remedy of appeal. An appeal is a continuation of the proceedings in trial and would be, thus, a continuation of judicial proceedings. For example, if no appeal had been filed, can it be said that despite conviction in the criminal case, the State is without authority of forfeiting the DCRG or pension for that matter? If it is not so, as we believe, then the pendency of the appeal cannot disentitle the State from withholding the DCRG, considering that it is a hiatus period within which certain arrangements have to be made which would be dependent on the outcome of the appeal.”

Previous Posts

Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License: Karnataka High Court

Arbitral Fee under Fourth Schedule Based on Aggregate Value of Claim & Counter-Claim: Delhi High Court

Party Having Right of Appeal Does Not Have Corresponding Right to Insist For Consideration of Appeal by Forum That Was No Longer In Existence: Supreme Court

No Public Right Is Superior To Defence Of The Country: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Challenge To Land Acquisition For ITBP Near LAC

Appointment under Outstanding Sportsperson Quota Can Be Made Only When There Is ‘Direct Affiliation’ With Indian Olympic Association: Rajasthan HC

Private Doctors Submitting Sketchy Medical Reports To Courts Are Guilty Of Fabricating False Evidence Download Judgement

Keywords

DCRG Benefits