Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: The Bench of Michael Zothankhuma, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed by a retired government employee seeking full pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits.

Petitioner, an Assistant Manager in the respondent corporation was arrested for offence under Sections 406, 408, 409, 470, 120-B, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was suspended from his post from the date of his arrest but reinstated later. No departmental proceeding was initiated against him. A charge sheet was filed against him and pending disposal of the criminal case, he retired. The said criminal proceedings were stayed by the trial court pursuant to a co-accused’s challenge to filing of charge sheet.

The petitioner submitted that as he had retired, he was entitled to full pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits since no departmental proceeding was initiated against him and even the criminal proceedings had been stayed by the High Court.

Respondent argued that Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 clearly stipulates that a retired government servant is not entitled to any gratuity and would be entitled to provisional pension only, during the pendency of judicial proceedings. He also submitted that all other retirement benefits had already been paid to the petitioner.

The Court noted that petitioner had been receiving a provisional pension; and held that in view of Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, respondents were not obligated to pay full pension and gratuity. In view thereof, the petition was dismissed.[Birendra Kumar Das v. Assam Power Generation Corpn. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Gau 22, Order dated 21-01-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Dealing with the scope of initiating the proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, the Court said that the mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 IPC but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. It was further added that even after the above position has emerged, the court has to form an opinion that that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.

Explaining the provision under Section 340 CrPC, the Court said that there are two pre conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC:

  • materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the CrPC and
  • (ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.

The bench of Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman, JJ said that in the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 of the CrPC has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course. [Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1316, decided on 23.11.2016]