The mere pendency of a criminal case does not, in every situation, by itself establish a legal basis for withholding pension or gratuity. The governing service rules and the connection, if any, between the pending proceeding and the employee's official duties have to be examined.
The Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava recognised that pension and gratuity are not a bounty and that the right to property protected by Article 300-A cannot be taken away except by authority of law. Subsequent decisions have applied this principle in cases where the pending criminal proceeding was unrelated to the employee's official duties and there was no corresponding disciplinary proceeding or departmental loss.
For example, in Surendra Singh v. Ministry of Defence, the Central Administrative Tribunal considered the effect of a pending criminal proceeding and referred to the Supreme Court's principles on pension and gratuity. On the facts before it, where the criminal proceeding was unrelated to official duties and no departmental proceeding or departmental loss was involved, the Tribunal held that withholding the benefits merely on that ground was not sustainable.
Whether retirement benefits can be withheld depends on the applicable pension or service rules and the nature and connection of the pending proceeding. A blanket assumption that every pending criminal case automatically permits withholding of all retirement benefits may therefore be legally unsafe.
With Regards,
S. JEEVAGAN, M.A., LL.M.
Advocate & Legal Consultant
M/s. JEEVAGAN LAW ASSOCIATES, MADURAI.