Coming to the rescue of a 73-year-old retired central excise officer acquitted of corruption charges, the high court’s Dharwad bench directed the release of his entire pension and gratuity within four weeks.
“In the event the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and commissioner of central excise, customs and service tax, do not disburse the terminal benefits, the petitioner becomes entitled to an interest at 6% per annum, from the date of superannuation till date of its payment,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed while allowing the petition filed by Hanumanth N Karkun.
The judge also asked the authorities not to drive the septuagenarian to the court again.
A resident of Dharwad, Karkun was working as superintendent, in charge of central excise, range A, Hubballi division. In 2011, he was accused of demanding Rs 2,000 bribe from a person for issuing service tax registration certificate, and a CBI probe was initiated against him under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Karkun retired from service on Jan 31, 2012. A departmental inquiry found that the charges against him were not proved. But the disciplinary authority disagreed with it and on UPSC’s advice, CBDT in 2023 withheld Karkun’s 100% pension and forfeited his 100% gratuity as penalty.
In the interregnum, Karkun was acquitted in the criminal case investigated by CBI and, on the strength of the same, he moved the high court for quashing the order imposing the penalty.
After perusing the materials on record, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that apart from the inquiry officer exonerating the petitioner twice, even the trial court had acquitted him, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. “Therefore, it can be safely said that it is not acquittal on the benefit of doubt, but due to lack of evidence and on merit,” the judge pointed out.
He said what is envisaged under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, is imposition of a maximum of 50% pension as penalty for a limited period or permanently, and there is no provision to withhold 100% of it. Gratuity can be withheld only if an employee is terminated for moral turpitude, but the petitioner was never terminated.
“The petitioner is now 73 years old. He has not seen the light of his terminal benefits, despite his retirement 13 years ago. He is left bleeding by the impugned penalty, which is worse than dismissal. If what the petitioner’s counsel submitted is considered, the petitioner’s ‘cup of sorrow’ has come to the brim,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
Source #TOI
