Pensionary action remains subject to the final outcome of pending criminal appeals against conviction.

The applicant, a retired Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, was convicted on April 18, 2015, by the XIII Additional Special Court (CBI Cases), Chennai, under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988.

Based on this conviction, the respondents invoked Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, to withhold his full pension and gratuity.

The applicant challenged this action, asserting that his criminal appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 245/2015) was pending before the Madras High Court and that the conviction had not attained finality.

After a remand from the Madras High Court in WP No. 31183 of 2019, it was noted that the High Court had confirmed the applicant's conviction on October 7, 2025, while reducing the sentence and modifying the disproportionate asset calculation to 25.8%.

The applicant subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the respondents' order to withhold pension and gratuity under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, should be quashed or stayed pending the finality of criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the outcome of the Original Application should be made contingent upon the final decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP.

Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which grants the government the power to withhold or withdraw pension in cases of conviction or grave misconduct.

Provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under which the applicant was originally convicted.

Procedural directions issued by the Madras High Court in WP No. 31183 of 2019, which instructed the Tribunal to decide the OA in accordance with law upon being appraised of the outcome of the criminal appeal.

The Tribunal observed that the Madras High Court had confirmed the applicant's guilt under the PC Act, thereby providing a basis for the respondents to act under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules.

Adhering to the High Court’s direction to decide the matter in light of the criminal proceedings' outcome, the Tribunal reasoned that since the criminal matter is now sub judice before the apex court, the finality of the administrative action regarding the applicant's pension must align with the Supreme Court's eventual judgment.

No order was made as to costs.