The Madras High Court has quashed an order whereby a retired employee’s pension was withheld due to his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court explained that the involvement in the said offence does not affect the conduct of a person.

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Assistant Treasury Officer and quash the same as illegal. A direction was also sought from the Respondent Authorities to pay the monthly pension to the petitioner.

The Single Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held, “The Pension rules provides that a person failure to have future good conduct would disentitle him from receiving the pension. Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act arises out of contractual dispute between the parties. Involvement cannot be said to be an offence which affect the conduct of the person. Such conduct cannot be also implied to affect his good conduct. This Court also finds no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Judge in the aforesaid judgement to hold that the petitioner's conduct can be said to be not good to deny the pension.”

Advocate R.Karunanidhi represented the Petitioner while Special Government Pleader F.Deepak represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the Petitioner that he had superannuated from service in the police department and was receiving pension. The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and by invoking the provision under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the pension had been stopped without offering an opportunity to the petitioner. It was contended that no action could be initiated for the conviction suffered by the petitioner under the Negotiable Instruments Act to withhold his pension.

Countering the petitioner’s argument, the respondents submitted that the petitioner, having been involved in three cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, had committed a grave misconduct which also ended in conviction, and there was no error in the order impugned.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the decision in WP. (MD). No.5002 of 2024 dated September 5, 2024, where the Division Bench of the High Court had given a categorical finding that a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be termed as an offence involving moral turpitude. It was also held therein that the charge memo issued on that ground against the petitioner therein was unseasonable.

The Bench was of the view that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises out of a contractual dispute between the parties and the involvement cannot be said to be an offence which affect the conduct of the person.

The Bench thus quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to release the pension to the petitioner and also pay the arrears of pension within twelve weeks.

Cause Title: Srinivasan v. The Director (Case No.: W.P.(MD)No.24101 of 2025)

Click here to read/download Order


Madras HCJustice K Kumaresh Babu

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.