Offence unconnected to service can’t bar gratuity after acquittal: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings unconnected to official duties cannot be the basis for withholding retirement benefits.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal also ruled that the pendency of an appeal against acquittal became irrelevant after the employee’s death.

The Bench directed Haryana to release gratuity and regularise the pension/family pension of a now-deceased employee within three months, along with 7.5 per cent annual interest, from the date of petition filing.

In his detailed order, Justice Bansal made it clear that “criminal proceedings must be relating to official duty” to justify such withholding under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. “An offence which is totally unrelated to official duty is not contemplated by Rule 2.2(b). In the instant case, alleged offence was not having bearing with official duties,” the court asserted.

The matter was placed before Justice Bansal’s Bench after the employee through counsel Dhiraj Chawla sought release of death-cum-retirement gratuity and other pensionary benefits. The Bench was told that the petitioner, who retired on March 31, 2004, was embroiled in an offence punishable under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act after his kidney was transplanted and was convicted in the case registered on October 13, 2002.

He was sentenced to five imprisonment on November 2, 2013. However, his conviction was set aside in appeal on October 17, 2018. Despite acquittal, the government declined to release his benefits, citing intention to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. He passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.

Later, the court was informed that Punjab had indeed preferred an appeal against all accused, including the petitioner, before the apex court.

The state relied on Rules 2.2(b), 2.2(c), and 9.14 to withhold the gratuity. The court, however, found the reasoning unsustainable. “The respondent during the course of hearing as well as in the reply has not pleaded that departmental proceedings are pending against the deceased. The only ground of withholding gratuity is that criminal appeal is pending against the deceased before Supreme Court,” Justice Bansal asserted.

The court added it was trite that criminal proceedings could not continue against a dead person. Further, a Supreme Court judgment, referred to, underlined that Rule 2.2(b) permitted withholding of gratuity for misconduct, but applied only where the act occurred during the service period and was related to official duty.

“By envisaging limitation of four years, the legislature has made it clear that proceedings should be concerned with department…. Thus, it can be safely concluded that criminal proceedings must be relating to official duty.” The court added that the very object of withholding gratuity was either to recover dues or to deny it in case of dismissal from service, which was not the case here. “The petitioner was made to retire without departmental proceedings,” the Bench noted.

The court also took into account humanitarian considerations. The petitioner, 73-year-old at the time of filing the petition, had undergone a kidney transplant, while his wife, also 73, was suffering from cancer. “She cannot be deprived from right of gratuity on the ground that criminal appeal is pending before the Supreme Court, especially when employee was acquitted by this court and he is no more.”