# Bhagwati Prasad v. U.O.I

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 999
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 2420 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwati-prasad-v-u-o-i-53793
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

9 All. Bhagwati Prasad Vs. U.O.I.
999
46. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has assailed the impugned order
dated 17.01.2023 on the ground that no
date, time and place for holding the inquiry
was fixed or intimated to the parties. It is
true that in a departmental inquiry, both
salutary principle and Rule 7 of the Rules
of 1999 mandate the scheduling of a date,
time and venue by the Inquiry Officer and
its due intimation to the delinquent as well
as the establishment. The said rule,
however, is applicable in a case, where a
major penalty is likely to be imposed. May
be in this case, it was likely to be imposed,
but it was not in fact imposed. What was
imposed
are
minor
penalties.
Minor
penalties have a far shorter procedure of
giving the delinquent a show cause notice
and
seeking
his
explanation,
after
considering which, orders may be passed,
disposing of the proceedings, may be
punishing the delinquent with one or more
minor
penalties.
If,
therefore,
after
commencing a regular inquiry, post issue of
a charge-sheet, the employers do not
proceed to award a major penalty, and,
instead, inflict a minor penalty within the
meaning of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999, the
failure to adhere to the letter of Rule 7 in
holding the inquiry, would in no way
vitiate the outcome. The reason is that for a
minor penalty, a far more summary
procedure of simply issuing a show cause
notice is envisaged under Rule 10 of the
aforesaid Rules. The requirements of Rule
10 have been satisfied within the fold of the
proceedings taken by the respondents, and
in fact, much more than that while passing
the order impugned dated 17.01.2013. The
said order cannot, therefore, be faulted.

47. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed in part. The
impugned order 12.10.2018, the orders
dated
16.03.2019,
19.07.2019
and
31.07.2020, the orders dated 01.04.2019
and 13.06.2019, 12.06.2019, 05.09.2020
and the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by
the respondents to the extent indicated in
the body of the judgment alone are hereby
quashed. The orders dated 01.10.2021 and
17.01.2023 are hereby upheld and the writ
petition dismissed to that extent.

48. Consequences to follow.

49. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 999
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ - A No. 2420 of 2023

Bhagwati Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avinash Singh Vishen, Sajeet Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.S.G.I., Devrishi Kumar

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility of withholding of Pension and
Gratuity by passing an order beyond the period
of four years.
2. Effect of pendency of Criminal Appeal against
the conviction order on the validity of the
punishment order, which was based on same
conviction order.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Central Civil Services
(Pension)
Rules,
1972
-
Rule
9
-
Withholding of Pension and gratuity -
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Punishment order was passed by the
President of India beyond period of four
years - Validity challenged:
Held : Rule 9(4) or for that matter Rule 9(6) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
do not lay down any time limit for taking an
action under Rule 9(1) based on any judicial
proceedings. Such a time limit has been
prescribed in Rule 9(2) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 but only in
respect of departmental proceedings and not
judicial proceedings, therefore, reliance placed
by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Rule
9(2)(b)(ii) read with Rule 9(6) is mis-conceived
- There being no time limit prescribed for taking
such decision as has been taken in respect of
the petitioner based on judicial proceedings with
reference to Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, such decision
cannot be said to be time barred. [Paras 6 and
8]

(B) Service law - Withholding of Pension
and gratuity - Punishment order was
based on a conviction order passed under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
Appeal against conviction is pending,
wherein the sentence order has been
stayed - Effect :
Held : Mere filing of a criminal appeal does not
wipe out the conviction as of now especially as
there is no stay on the conviction of the
appellant in the criminal appeal. It is true that in
view of filing of the criminal appeal by the
petitioner,
challenging
his
conviction
vide
judgment dated 26.04.2014 under Section 7 and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
the conviction has not attained finality and the
judicial proceedings are still going on, but, it is
equally true that conviction has not been wiped
off. In the event the petitioner's appeal
succeeds,
he
may
be
entitled
to
claim
revocation of the decision dated 12.04.2021.
[Para 9] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
N.K. Suparna vs. Union of India and others, ILR
2004 KAR 4628; W.P. (C) No. 12470 of 2018,
P.C. Mishra v. Union of India decided on
26.11.2018; Union of India v. V.K. Bhaskar,
1997 (11) SCC 383; K. C. Sareen v. CBI,
Chandigarh, 2001 (6) SCC 584 - referred to.

List of Acts
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -
Rule 9; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss.
7, 13(1)(d) and S. 13(2)

List of Keywords
Withholding of Pension and Gratuity; Conviction;
Appeal; Sentence; Time limit; Departmental
proceeding;
Judicial
proceeding;
Criminal
proceeding; Age of superannuation; Time
barred; Finality; Impediment.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 12.10.2022 passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in
Original Application No. 332/00327 of 2021.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Avinash Singh Vishen,
Sajeet Singh
Advs. for the Respondeents : A.S.G.I., Devrishi
Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard Shri Avinash Singh Vishen,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Devrishi Kumar, learned counsel for the
opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition
challenge has been raised to a judgment
and order dated 12.10.2022 rendered by
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow
in
Original
Application
No.332/00327/2021.

3. The petitioner herein had filed
the
aforesaid
Original
Application
challenging an order dated 12.04.2021,
whereby the President of India had ordered
withholding
of
pension
and
gratuity
payable to the applicant/ petitioner in its
entirety. This decision was taken on the
basis
of
petitioner's
conviction
on
26.04.2014 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special
9 All. Bhagwati Prasad Vs. U.O.I.
1001
Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI
(West), Lucknow. He was sentenced to
undergo maximum five years' rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.90,000/-.
The
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Lucknow has dismissed the Original
Application.

4. The contention of petitioner's
counsel before us was that there is a time
limit of four years prescribed in Rule 9 of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972 which has not been taken into
consideration while passing the order dated
12.04.2021 nor has the Tribunal taken into
consideration the said proviso. In this
context he referred to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) read
with Rule 9(6) of the Central Civil Services
(Pension)
Rules,
1972.
The
other
contention was that the petitioner has
challenged his conviction and sentence by
way of filing Criminal Appeal No.590 of
2014 before the High Court where the
appeal is still pending wherein his sentence
has been stayed and, as, by virtue of
pendency of the appeal the said conviction
has not attained finality rather the judicial
proceedings are still continuing, therefore,
an order under Rule 9(1) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 could
not have been passed but this aspect of the
matter has been lost sight of by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow while
passing the order dated 12.04.2021 and the
judgment dated 12.10.2022 as the petitioner
retired on 30.06.2000 and the charge sheet
was filed in August, 2000, whereas the
order dated 12.04.2021 has been passed
beyond a period of four years. In this
contention he referred to Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)
read with Rule 9(6) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. These were
the only two grounds pressed before us.

5. Rule 9 of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as
under :-

 "9.
Right
of
President
to
withhold or withdraw pension - [(1) The
President reserves to himself the right of
withholding a pension or gratuity, or both,
either in full or in part, or withdrawing a
pension in full or in part, whether
permanently or for a specified period, and
of ordering recovery from a pension or
gratuity of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if
in
any
departmental
or
judicial
proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty
of grave misconduct or negligence during
the period of service, including service
rendered
upon
re-employment
after
retirement :

 Provided that the Union Public
Service Commission shall be consulted
before any final orders are passed :

 Provided further that where a
part of pension is withheld or withdrawn
the amount of such pensions shall not be
reduced below the amount of rupees three
hundred and seventy-five per mensem].

 (2)
(a)
The
departmental
proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if
instituted while the Government servant
was
in
service
whether
before
his
retirement or during his re-employment,
shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be
proceedings under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority
by which they were commenced in the same
manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service :
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided
that
where
the
departmental proceedings are instituted by
an authority subordinate to the President,
that authority shall submit a report
recording its findings to the President.

 (b)
The
departmental
proceedings, is not instituted while the
Government
servant
was
in
service,
whether before his retirement, or during his
re-employment, -

 (i) shall not be instituted save
with the sanction of the President,

 (ii) shall not be in respect of any
event which took place more than four
years before such institution, and

 (iii) shall be conducted by such
authority and in such place as the
President may direct and in accordance
with
the
procedure
applicable
to
departmental proceedings in relation to the
Government servant during his service.

 (3) [omitted]

 (4) In the case of Government
servant who has retired on attaining the
age of superannuation or otherwise and
against whom any departmental or judicial
proceedings
are
instituted
or
where
departmental proceedings are continued
under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension
as provided in Rule 59 shall be sanctioned.

 (5) Where the President decides
not to withhold or withdraw pension but
orders recovery of pecuniary loss from
pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily
be made at a rate exceeding one-third of
the pension admissible on the date of
retirement of a Government servant.

 (5- A) The President may at any
time, either on his own motion or otherwise
call for the records of any inquiry and
revise any order made under these rules,
after consultation with the Union Public
Service Commission, and may confirm,
modify or set aside the order; or remit the
case to any authority directing such
authority to make such further enquiry as it
may consider proper in the circumstances
of the case; or pass such other orders as he
may deem fit:

 Provided that no order enhancing
the amount of the pension or gratuity to be
withheld or withdrawn, shall be made by
the President unless the Government
servant concerned has been given a
reasonable
opportunity
of
making
a
representation against the order proposed
and except after consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission.

 (5-B) The President may at any
time, either on his own motion or otherwise
review any order passed under these rules,
where extenuating or special circumstances
exist to warrant such review or when any
new material or evidence which could not
be produced or was not available at the
time of passing the order under review and
which has the effect of changing the nature
of the case, has come, or has been brought,
to his notice:

 Provided that no order enhancing
the amount of the pension or gratuity to be
withheld or withdrawn, shall be made by
the President unless the Government
servant concerned has been given a
reasonable
opportunity
of
making
a
representation against the order proposed
and except after consultation with the
Union Public Service Commission.]
9 All. Bhagwati Prasad Vs. U.O.I.
1003
 (6) For the purpose of this rule, -

 (a)
departmental
proceedings
shall be deemed to be instituted on the date
on which the statement of charges is issued
to the Government servant or pensioner, or
if the Government servant has been placed
under suspension from an earlier date, on
such date, and

 (b) judicial proceedings shall be
deemed to be instituted -

 (i) in the case of criminal
proceedings, on the date on which the
complaint or report of a police officer, of
which the Magistrate takes cognizance is
made, and

 (ii)
in
the
case
of
civil
proceedings, on the date the plaint is
presented in the court."

6. The pension and gratuity of the
petitioner has been withheld entirely under
Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner's
counsel has relied upon Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. However, on a careful reading of the
entire Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 we find that Rule
9(2)
relates
only
to
departmental
proceedings as referred in Rule 9(1). It
does not relate to judicial proceedings
which have been referred in Rule 9(1) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. No doubt Rule 9(6) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
provides that for the purpose of said Rule
judicial proceedings in the case of criminal
proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted on the date on which the
complaint or report of a police officer, of
which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is
made, but this Rule 9(6) is not referrable to
Rule 9(1) under which the decision dated
12.04.2021 has been taken, rather, it is
relatable and referrable to Rule 9(4) which
provides that in the case of government
servant who has retired on attaining age of
superannuation or otherwise and against
whom
any
departmental
or
judicial
proceedings
are
instituted
or
where
departmental proceedings are continued
under Rule 9(2) of the Central Civil
Services
(Pension)
Rules,
1972,
a
provisional pension as provided in Rule 59
of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972 shall be sanctioned. The
institution of such departmental or judicial
proceedings as referred in Rule 9(4) has to
be understood as per Rule 9(6) of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. Rule 9(4) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 only
provides for a provisional pension in the
eventualities mentioned therein and nothing
more. Rule 9(4) or for that matter Rule 9(6)
of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972 do not lay down any time limit
for taking an action under Rule 9(1) based
on any judicial proceedings. Such a time
limit has been prescribed in Rule 9(2) of
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972 but only in respect of departmental
proceedings and not judicial proceedings,
therefore, reliance placed by learned
counsel for the petitioner upon Rule
9(2)(b)(ii) read with Rule 9(6) is misconceived.

7. As regards reliance placed by
learned counsel for the petitioner on the
decision of Karnataka High Court in the
case of N.K. Suparna vs. Union of India
and others reported in ILR 2004 KAR
4628, the Delhi High Court has considered
the said judgment and has opined that
relevant provisions do not lend themselves
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to the interpretation or understanding as
opined by the Karnataka High Court. We
concur with the observations of the Delhi
High Court in this regard, a fact which is
also evident from the discussion made
herein-above. The said decision of the
Delhi High Court in the case of P.C.
Mishra vs. Union of India reported in
W.P. (C) No.12470 of 2018 decided on
26.11.2018 has been referred in the
decision dated 12.04.2021 which was
impugned
before
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow. Infact
the said order dated 12.04.2021 also refers
to certain decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court such as in the case of Union of India
vs. V.K. Bhaskar reported in 1997 (11)
SCC 383 and K.C. Sareen vs. CBI,
Chandigarh reported in 2001 (6) SCC
584. We have also gone through the
aforesaid decisions. They support the line
of reasoning adopted by us as mentioned
herein-above. While those decisions were
rendered in a different context, that is of
removal or dismissal of a person convicted
of a criminal offence based on his conduct
relating
to
such
conviction
etc.,
nevertheless, the principle referred and
elucidated therein would apply to a case
such as the one before us also. Of course
the factum of pendency of the criminal
appeal means that in the event the
petitioner's appeal succeeds on merits he
may be entitled to claim revocation of the
decision dated 12.04.2021, but it does not
mean that such pendency could thwart or
impede a decision under Rule 9(1) of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. No such law has been placed before
us by the petitioner's counsel.

8. We accordingly hold that there
being no time limit prescribed for taking such
decision as has been taken in respect of the
petitioner based on judicial proceedings with
reference to Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, such decision
cannot be said to be time barred. The
contention of petitioner's counsel to the
contrary is accordingly rejected.

9. As regards the other contention
noticed herein-above, no doubt the petitioner
has challenged his conviction by filing a
criminal appeal but mere filing of a criminal
appeal does not wipe out the conviction as of
now especially as there is no stay on the
conviction of the appellant in the criminal
appeal. It is true that in view of filing of the
criminal appeal by the petitioner, challenging
his conviction vide judgment dated 26.04.2014
under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the conviction has not
attained finality and the judicial proceedings
are still going on, but, it is equally true that
conviction has not been wiped off. In the event
the petitioner's appeal succeeds, he may be
entitled to claim revocation of the decision
dated 12.04.2021, but it does not mean that
such pendency is an impediment in taking a
decision under Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

10. For all these reasons we are of the
opinion that the order dated 12.04.2021 which
contains a detailed and reasoned decision
demonstrating due and proper application of
mind and has been passed, after due
opportunity to the petitioner as mentioned
therein, a fact which is not in dispute. The
judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Lucknow upholding the said
decision dated 12.04.2021 and dismissing the
Original Application of the petitioner does not
suffer
from
any
error
warranting
an
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

11. The petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
9 All. Prinsu Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1005
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ - A No. 5353 of 2025

Prinsu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sankalp Narain, Srivats Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
Satish
Chaturvedi,
Sudarshan
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility to condone the inordinate delay
caused in approaching the High Court in respect
of matter relating to claim of compassionate
appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article
14
and
16
-
Compassionate
appointment - Rationale and Purpose -
Appointment in the public office - Extent
of compromising with the principle of
merit while making such appointment :
Held : Appointments on compassionate grounds
is a departure and an exception to the public
process of appointments as stipulated in the
Constitution.
Compassionate
appointments
reflect the commitment of the State as a model
employer to the welfare of its employees - The
sole
purpose
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is to provide prompt financial
succour to a family of the deceased government
employee
which
faces
sudden
financial
destitution as a result of the death of the
employee in harness - Under the constitutional
scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
appointments to government posts have to be
achieved by merit and not acquired by
inheritance. Constitutional law holdings have
disapproved
conversion
of
compassionate
appointments into a source of recruitment.
[Paras 5, 6 and 9]

(B) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Scope of Interference
-
Delay
and
laches
-
Claim
of
compassionate appointment - Though,
first application was made within six
months, but IInd application was made
and subsequently writ petition was filed in
the
High
Court
after
five
years
-
Condonation of delay - Permissibility -
Filing of representations over long year,
how far relevant :
Held : The delay in approaching the Court was
deliberate choice made by the petitioner and not
a
fait
accompli
forced
by
penurious
circumstances. On the contrary as seen earlier
the petitioner had busied himself in litigation for
long years with his family members. He was
always aware of his rights and possessed the
wherewithal to approach this Court as well. In
these circumstances the laches on the part of
the petitioner in approaching this Court are not
liable to be condoned. The writ petition is
barred by delay and laches - Mere filing of
representations over long years or even
instituting a writ petition to decide the same
after a long delay does not condone the laches
on the part of the litigation. [Paras 20 and 21]
Held further : The respondent bank is certainly
precluded from denying the compassionate
grounds appointment on the grounds of delay in
view of Ajit Kumar's case. However, this Court
can always look into the issue of delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner and decline
to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para
25]

Case Law Cited
Ashish Yadav v. Managing Director, UP State
Road
Transport
Corporation
and
others
rendered in Writ A No. 17483 of 2024; Canara
Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290; C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115; Gian Singh
Mann v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and
another, (1980) 4 SCC 266 - referred to. (E-1)

List of Acts