₹300 Bribe-Demand Conviction: CAT Upholds Permanent 50% Pension Cut For Retired BSNL Employee Despite Pending Appeal

The applicant, a BSNL employee, superannuated on 31 January 2010 while a CBI criminal case against him was pending.

He was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, on 4 December 2012 and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine; his appeal was pending before the Patna High Court.

After issuing a show-cause memorandum and considering his reply, BSNL imposed a permanent 50% cut in his pension under Rule 61 of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, by order dated 21 May 2018.

The applicant challenged that order and sought release of his DCRG and commuted pension value.

The respondents stated that the Department of Telecommunications had ratified the proposed penalty and that the DCRG had been released in December 2018.

Rule 61(4)(1) of the BSNL CDA Rules, 2006, empowers the Chairman/Managing Director to impose a full or partial, permanent or time-limited withholding or withdrawal of pension or gratuity in specified circumstances, provided the Administrative Ministry is consulted before final orders are passed; Rule 61(3) separately addresses withholding gratuity and recovery from it.

The Tribunal also considered Government instructions permitting action based on conduct leading to conviction without awaiting the outcome of an appeal, including the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 21 July 2016.

It relied on the Full Bench decision in OA No. 213/2019, Mumbai Bench, for its view that, for the relevant purpose, judicial proceedings conclude with the judgment of the trial court or court of first instance, rather than the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed penalty had been ratified by the Department of Telecommunications before the final order, satisfying Rule 61(4)(1)’s consultation requirement.

It rejected the argument that the pending appeal prevented action: the conviction remained in force and had not been stayed or set aside, and the Tribunal considered the trial court’s judgment sufficient for the respondents to proceed under the applicable rules.

The Tribunal further found that the DCRG had already been released, subject to verification of actual payment, and that the pension-cut order did not itself direct forfeiture of gratuity.

It rejected the claims for commuted pension value and interest insofar as they depended on the grounds raised in the application.

It disposed of the DCRG claim in view of its stated release, rejected the claims for commuted pension value and interest, and made no order as to costs.