Double Jeopardy Doesn’t apply in Service Law: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a retired Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officer challenging the permanent forfeiture of his pension and gratuity following his conviction in a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the action taken by the Union of India did not amount to double jeopardy and was fully justified under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had earlier rejected the officer’s challenge to the penalty imposed by the President of India under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Rawat had served as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs and retired on 30 September 2009. During his service, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted searches at his residential premises in May 2005. Based on the material collected, an FIR was registered in April 2007 alleging possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income for the period between 1 January 1996 and 30 May 2005. Parallel to the criminal proceedings, departmental action was initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for failure to intimate the department about various financial transactions and assets acquired in his name and in the names of his wife and son. These included investments in post office schemes, stock market investments, immovable properties, and vehicles. An Inquiry Officer eventually held the charges as “not proved”. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings and, after consulting the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), imposed a penalty in January 2016 of withholding 10% of the petitioner’s monthly pension for two years. This penalty ran its course and his full pension was restored in October 2018. The petitioner was convicted by a Special CBI Court for offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing disproportionate assets. He was sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹5 lakh. Although the Delhi High Court later stayed the sentence in appeal, the conviction itself was not stayed and the appeal remains pending. Following the conviction, the government issued a fresh memorandum in September 2018 proposing action under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules for grave misconduct involving moral turpitude. After considering his representations and the advice of the UPSC, the President ordered in May 2019 the permanent withholding of 100% of his pension and forfeiture of his entire gratuity. The petitioner challenged this order before the CAT, arguing that imposing a second penalty on the same set of facts amounted to double jeopardy and violated Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The Tribunal rejected his plea, prompting him to approach the High Court. The High Court noted that the two penalties were based on distinct grounds. The first penalty arose from departmental proceedings for failure to intimate financial transactions, whereas the second penalty was imposed solely on the basis of his criminal conviction for possession of disproportionate assets. The Bench held that the ingredients of misconduct in the two proceedings were different and, therefore, the principle of double jeopardy had no application. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and LIC of India v. Mukesh Poonamchand Shah, the Court reiterated that service rules permit independent action based on criminal conviction, irrespective of earlier departmental punishment. The Court further observed that Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules confers a distinct power on the President to withhold or withdraw pension if a retired government servant is found guilty of grave misconduct during service. This power is not negated by the fact that a lesser penalty may have already been imposed in departmental proceedings. The Court clarified that suspension of sentence does not amount to suspension of conviction. As long as the conviction stands, the government is entitled to take action under the applicable service and pension rules. The Bench noted that if the petitioner were to be acquitted in appeal, the matter could always be reviewed to ensure that he suffers no prejudice. Case Details Case Title: Ajai Kumar Srivastava Versus Jagdish Chandra Solanki Case No.: W.P.(C) 6557/2021 & CM APPL. 20574/2021 Date: 23.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Ajai Kumar Srivastava Counsel For Respondent: Jagdish Chandra Solanki Click Here To Read Order Read More: IGST Refund Proceedings After Omission of Rule 96(10) Quashed: Karnataka High Court

Double Jeopardy Doesn’t apply in Service Law: Delhi HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Compensation for Delayed Possession Of Flats To Homebuyers Can’t Be Limited by One-Sided Builder Clauses: Supreme Court

Extended Limitation Not Invocable Without Suppression: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand on Online Advertisement

Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS Unsustainable When Underlying Services Are Exempt: CESTAT

SEBI Suspends General Manager in Vigilance Case Linked to SME IPO Probe

More like this

Compensation for Delayed Possession Of Flats To Homebuyers Can’t Be Limited by One-Sided Builder Clauses: Supreme Court

Extended Limitation Not Invocable Without Suppression: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand on Online Advertisement

Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS Unsustainable When Underlying Services Are Exempt: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories