Withholding of Pension Due to Criminal Conviction Does Not Mandate Prior Notice or Constitute Double Jeopardy

The petitioner, a retired Bank Manager of M.P. Gramin Bank, was convicted on November 30, 2018, by a Special Judge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He was sentenced to three and four years of rigorous imprisonment for different counts.

Prior to his retirement on January 31, 2016, a departmental enquiry had already resulted in the withholding of two annual increments.

Following his criminal conviction, the respondent Bank issued an order dated September 3, 2020, withholding his entire pension.

The petitioner challenged this order, arguing it constituted "double jeopardy," violated principles of natural justice, and that the 2018 Pension Regulations could not be applied retrospectively to someone who retired in 2016.

1. Whether the withholding of pension based on a criminal conviction constitutes double jeopardy if the petitioner was already punished in a departmental enquiry for the same facts.

2. Whether the Madhya Pradesh Grameen Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018, can be applied to withhold the pension of an employee who retired prior to the notification of said regulations.

3. Whether the principles of natural justice require a prior hearing before withholding a pension due to a criminal conviction.

Regulations 40, 41, and 42 of the Madhya Pradesh Grameen Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 2018, which stipulate that "future good conduct" is a condition for pension and empower the competent authority to withhold pension upon conviction for a serious crime.

The Full Bench decision in Lal Sahab Bairagi v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2020), which established that natural justice is expressly excluded in cases of pension withdrawal following a criminal conviction, and thus no prior notice is required.

The court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding double jeopardy, noting that departmental punishment for service rule violations and the withholding of pension due to a criminal conviction for corruption are distinct legal actions.

Regarding the applicability of the 2018 Regulations, the court observed that the petitioner himself was claiming pension under these specific regulations; therefore, he could not selectively opt-out of the penal provisions (Regulations 40-42) contained within the same regulatory framework.

The court found that because the petitioner was convicted by a competent court for serious offenses involving criminal breach of trust and corruption, the Bank was legally empowered under Regulation 42 to take action based on the judgment of the court.

Following the precedent in Lal Sahab Bairagi, the court held that a conviction by a court of law obviates the need for a fresh hearing before the administrative withholding of pension.

It ruled that natural justice does not apply to pensioners convicted in criminal cases under the applicable rules.

The respondent’s action under Regulations 40, 41, and 42 of the 2018 Regulations was found to be valid despite the prior departmental punishment. The writ petition was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the petitioner.