Here's a breakdown of the recent court decision involving Pramod Kumar Rawat and the Union of India, which was settled in the Delhi High Court. The case revolves around allegations of corruption and the resulting penalties on Rawat's pension.
Pramod Kumar Rawat, a former Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, retired on September 30, 2009. The trouble began when the CBI searched his home in May 2005, suspecting him of having more money and property than his income could explain. By April 2007, a police report was filed against him, and actions were taken to discipline him.
In 2009, actions were taken against Rawat, accusing him of not reporting various financial transactions. These included investments and property purchases in his and his family’s names. An investigation in 2014 initially found the charges 'not proved,' but the authority in charge disagreed, leading to a penalty in 2016 of withholding 10% of his pension for two years.
"The penalty ran its course and the full pension of the petitioner was restored in October 2018."
In January 2017, Rawat was found guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to two years in prison, which he appealed. Despite the appeal, a new notice in September 2018 proposed cutting his pension and gratuity due to this conviction.
By May 2019, a severe penalty was imposed: withholding 100% of his monthly pension and taking away his gratuity permanently.
Rawat argued that imposing two penalties for the same wrongdoing was unfair. His lawyer referred to previous court decisions to support this claim, emphasizing that his criminal appeal was still pending.
Judges Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain dismissed Rawat's petition on December 23, 2025. They concluded that the penalties were based on different reasons—failure to report transactions versus having more assets than he should—and thus did not count as being punished twice for the same thing.
"The principle of double jeopardy shall have no application."
The court decided that the penalties were justified, given the different nature of the charges and the ongoing conviction. Rawat's appeal remains pending, but for now, the court's decision stands firm.
