The Supreme Court on 7 April 2026 dismissed the civil appeal filed by Bikram Chand Rana, a retired Senior Assistant of the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, upholding the withholding of his gratuity on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 140/2006 registered in connection with the 2006 Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) question paper leak. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi held that Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 operates as a statutory embargo and not an enabling provision. The use of the disjunctive “or” in the Rule makes it clear that gratuity shall not be paid to a government servant until the conclusion of either the departmental proceedings or the judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon.
The appellant joined the Corporation as a Clerk in 1979 and was promoted to Senior Assistant in 2000. He superannuated on 28 February 2009. Between May and July 2006, he was allegedly involved in the CPMT paper leak scam. FIR No. 140/2006 was registered against him and others under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 120B IPC. He was arrested on 24 November 2006 and released on bail the next day. Parallel departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on two charges: (i) involvement in the paper leak; and (ii) violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Inquiry Officer, in his report dated 26 February 2009, recorded that there was no material to establish the appellant’s involvement and expressly noted that the matter was sub-judice before the criminal court. The charges against the appellant were ultimately found not proved on 28 May 2015.
Despite the exoneration in the departmental inquiry, the Corporation withheld the appellant’s gratuity and other terminal benefits citing the pendency of the criminal case. The appellant made repeated representations and approached the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (later transferred to the High Court as CWP OA No. 5144/2019). The Single Judge and, subsequently, the Division Bench in LPA No. 188/2021 rejected his claim, directing only expeditious disposal of the criminal trial. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that Rule 69(1)(c) should be interpreted to mean that gratuity becomes payable once either set of proceedings concludes. He also invoked Rule 9(1) of the 1972 Rules, arguing that any future recovery could be effected if he were ultimately convicted.
Rejecting both submissions, the Supreme Court clarified that Rule 69(1)(c) is a protective provision intended to safeguard the financial interests of the State. The ordinary disjunctive “or” expands the scope of the bar: gratuity remains withheld so long as either departmental or judicial proceedings remain pending. Accepting the appellant’s interpretation would lead to an anomalous result — an employee could demand release of gratuity merely because one set of proceedings concluded, even if the other continued. The Court emphasised that the standard of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings is fundamentally different and an acquittal in one does not automatically bind the other. Rule 9(1), which permits withholding or recovery of pension/gratuity upon a finding of guilt, operates only after conclusion of proceedings and cannot be used to justify premature release during their pendency.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant’s exoneration in the departmental inquiry and the acquittal of certain students in the criminal case may lend support in the ongoing trial, but these factors cannot override the statutory bar under Rule 69(1)(c). Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Court reiterated its earlier direction to the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 140/2006.
Case Title: Bikram Chand Rana v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation
Civil Appeal No.: 14669 of 2025
Coram: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi
Lawcutor 