Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Subhasis Basu vs Posts on 21 January, 2025
1 OA 1292/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/01292/2023
DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21.01.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Subhasis Basu,
Son of Late Arun Kumar Basu, aged about 62 years, was working
as Post Master, Tangra SO (NDC), residing at 99/A Desbandhu
Nagar Road, Hindmotor, Hooghly, Pin- 712233.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Yogayog Bhawan, C.R.
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012.
3. The Post Master General, Kolkata Region, Yogayog
Bhawan, Kolkata- 700012.
4. Director of Postal Services, Yogayog Bhawan, C. R.
Avenue, Kolkata- 700012.
........ Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel
Mr. Argha Chakraborty, Counsel
Ms. P. Mondal, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. R. Halder, Counsel
Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Counsel
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f
9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a
LAL
dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 OA 1292/2023
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"i) An order do issue directing the respondents to release Leave Salary, full pension and DCRG in favour of the applicant with interest as admissible under the Rules since the respondents have failed to complete Disciplinary Proceedings within 90 days from the date of communication of the Order and no application praying for extension of time was filed by the respondents before the expiry of 90 days."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in his OA, are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-
A Disciplinary Proceeding against the applicant was instituted on 07.09.2021 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Converted to Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The charges against the applicant were that while working as Post Master, Cossipore Head Post Office, Kolkata for the period from 06.06.2017 to 14.12.2020, he failed to pay attention to the excess cash balances that were being held by Sinthee Post Office, Kolkata. On 11.09.2018, 14.09.2018, 29.11.2018, 01.06.2019 and 13.07.2019, the SPM, Sinthee Post Office retained excess amount of cash over and above the maximum amount that may be retained by the Sinthee Post Office amounting to Rs. 11,78,381.77 in total. The applicant neither objected to retention of excess cash nor he took any action for removing the same on those days when no cash was actually required by Sinthee Post Office. Also, the applicant issued pay orders on 12.09.2018, 15.09.2018, 30.11.2018, 04.03.2018, 04.03.2019, 03.06.2019, 07.06.2019, 12.06.2019, 29.06.2019, 08.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 based on cash Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA 1292/2023 requisitions received from Sinthee PO without examining the balance in hand by the SPM, Sinthee PO and thereby remitted a huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 81,99,000. As a result of which SPM, Sinthee PO got an opportunity to retain excess cash amounting to Rs. 79,23,711.46 in hand on those days. The applicant thus facilitated the SPM, Sinthee PO to receive huge amounts of cash which in turn helped the delinquent Post Master of Sinthee PO to misappropriate Government money to the tune of Rs. 27,06,000 on the above mentioned dates. Inquiry proceeding have been completed. Inquiry Report was submitted on 12.07.2022 and the representation of the charged official was given on 18.08.2022 which was received on 23.08.2022.
In the meantime, the applicant retired on superannuation on 30.09.2021. His retiral dues were withheld by the respondents due to pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him.
Aggrieved by the respondents' failure to finalise the case which had resulted in denial of release of his pensionary benefits, the applicant filed OA no. 678/2023. This OA was disposed of on 29.05.2023 by the Tribunal which directed the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceeding preferably within 90 days. Respondents filed an OA for extension of time limit stipulated by the Court. MA was dismissed on the ground that it was filed much after the expiry of the time granted by the Court and this Court had become functus officio upon expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of the orders.
The applicant has filed this OA praying for payment of DCRG and Leave Encashment amount with interest.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the disciplinary proceeding have not yet been completed.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA 1292/2023 3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Tribunal was communicated to the respondents on 31.05.2023 and the same was received by them on 01.06.2023. 90 days granted by the Tribunal to complete the disciplinary proceeding expired on 01.09.2023. No application was filed by the respondents praying for extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, if any Order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it would be nonest in the eye of law.
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal in OA no.
1157/2000 on a similar issued had observed that if any Order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, without filing any application praying for extension of time to comply with the Court's order, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Till the filing of this OA, the applicant did not receive any application from the respondents wherein they have prayed for extension of time to comply with the Court's order and as such any order passed by the Disciplinary Authority will be nonest in the eye of law.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that according to the respondents, inquiry was concluded in the month of July, 2022 under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Final order is to be passed by UPSC on behalf of the President and necessary action was being initiated to forward the complete file to the Directorate. When the inquiry was completed in the month of July, 2022 why necessary action has not been taken to forward the disciplinary file to the Directorate (UPSC) till date. However, the Disciplinary Authority cannot pass any order in respect of the Disciplinary Proceeding when 90 days granted by the Tribunal to pass final order has expired and no application was filed by the respondents before the Tribunal praying for extension of time to pass final order.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA 1292/2023 3.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Chakraborty vs. Union of India & Ors. held that termination in any event is a nullity as the same was passed in utter violation or breach of the Order dated 30.09.2002 fixing the time limits of three months for completion of the Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner from the date of the order. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Premnath Bali vs. Registrar High Court at Delhi had observed that proceedings must be completed within one year from the date of initiation.
3.5 The applicant and Learned Counsel for the applicant cite the following judgments in support of their claim :-
(i) State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Sri Anunavo Gupta & Anr. in WP. ST 23 of 2023,
(ii) Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & anr. in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010,
(iii) Dilip Kumar Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in 2008(1) CHN355.
4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents submits the following :-
(i) Since the Disciplinary Proceeding has not been quashed by any forum, nor has the Department withdrawn it, therefore, the Departmental Proceeding is still alive as on date even after non-extension of time of 90 days.
(ii) In the original Order, there is no provision or direction or observation that if the Disciplinary Proceeding is not completed within 90 days, it would be abated or deemed to be quashed.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA 1292/2023
(iii) Leave encashment cannot be withheld as per judicial pronouncement, only in cases where no specific rules exists for withholding of such leave encashment on retirement. Since the Central Government leave rules makes a provision for withholding of the leave encashment amount upon pendency of departmental proceeding at the time of retirement, the judicial pronouncement referred to by the applicant's side is not applicable.
(iv) When there are specific rules for withholding the gratuity and leave encashment in the event of pendency of Disciplinary Proceeding and the authority has passed a specific order, this OA cannot be entertained at this stage, it can be dealt with only after the disciplinary proceeding is quashed.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the respondents also submits that para 8 of his OA, the applicant has merely prayed for release of his full pension, DCRG and Leave Encashment amount. He has not challenged the subsistence of the Disciplinary Proceeding against him.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the respondents have not yet been able to complete the Disciplinary Proceeding against the applicant as after his retirement the Disciplinary Authority in his case is the President of India. The case has also to be sent to the UPSC through the Postal Directorate. The local offices are making earnest efforts to fulfill the requirements before sending the case file to the Directorate/UPSC for obtaining the President's Order.
4.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the DCRG and Leave Encashment payment to the applicant has been withheld as per rules as the Disciplinary Proceeding against the applicant are still alive. He cites the judgments in the following case in support of his contention :-
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA 1292/2023
(i) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in K. P. Sharma vs. Unin of India & Ors. in WP (C) No. 8762/2015 ,
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sharvan Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 1942/2014,
(iii) Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in Ajay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India through the Secretary in WP (S) No. 5927/2022.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the documents on record.
5.1 Applicant's limited prayer in this OA is for release of withheld amounts of DCRG and Leave Encashment and payment of full pension. Disciplinary proceeding against the applicant were started on 07.09.2021. He retired on 30.09.2021. Respondents were directed by this Court on 29.05.2023 to conclude the Disciplinary Proceeding preferably within 90 days. However, Disciplinary Proceeding is yet to be concluded even after more than three years of the issue of Charge Memorandum and more than two years after conclusion of the inquiry. Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that the respondents not having complied with the order of the Court, any action taken against the applicable will be nonest. Therefore, all his retiral dues including full pension, DCRG and Leave Salary should be released. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondents cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharvan Kumar (supra) to argue that inability to adhere to the time frame set by the Court cannot automatically lead to lapsing of disciplinary proceeding.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA 1292/2023 5.2 Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Sri Anunavo Gupta & Anr. in WP. ST 23 of 2023 dated 05.09.2023 has observed as follows :-
".......................
By the impugned order the Tribunal found that, the disciplinary proceeding as against the private respondent was not concluded within the time period specified by the Tribunal in its earlier order dated February 21, 2021 passed in OA 31 of 2021.
The Tribunal, therefore, proceeded to quash and set aside the order of punishment dated March 8, 2022 meted out as against the private respondent in the disciplinary proceeding.
.................................
The departmental proceeding was required to be concluded within six months from February 12, 2021. It was not concluded within such specified time.
................................
The Tribunal found that since the departmental proceeding was not concluded within the time specified in the earlier proceeding, it proceeded to quash the order of punishment and the departmental proceeding.
In the facts of the present case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
................................"
In Dilip Kumar Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. in 2008(1) CHN355, Hon'ble High Court has ordered as under :-
"......................
79. The disciplinary authority not only failed to complete the disciplinary proceeding within the time-limit of three months by passing its final order but it did not even think it necessary to seek further extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceeding when the authority could not complete such proceeding by passing its final order within the time-limit granted by the said second order of this Court dated 30th September, 2002.
80. I have already held on merits that the said order of termination dated 10th February, 2003 should be set aside and I further held that the order of termination in any event a nullity as the same was passed in utter violation or breach of the order of this Court dated 30th September, 2002 fixing the time-limit of three months for completion of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner from the date of that order.
....................................."
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA 1292/2023 On the other hand in para 10.1 of its judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sharvan Kumar in Civil Appeal No. 1942/2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :-
"10.1 Moreover, when no consequence of default was stated in the order dated 03.09.2010, the period as stated therein was only of expectations and not of mandate. We may also observe that very many times, such fixing of time period causes more complications and harm rather than serving the cause of justice. Fixing of such period could only be justified if there are strong and compelling reasons for the same; and if at all such period is proposed to be fixed, not only the reasons for the same but, even the consequences of default are also required to be stated if such period is, for any valid reason, expected to operate with adverse consequences on the defaulter."
The abovequoted judgments refer to abatement of Disciplinary Proceeding in the event of it not getting concluded within the period stipulated by judicial order. In the instant case, the petitioner, in the relief part contained in Para 8 of the OA, has not claimed abatement or quashing for the Disciplinary Proceeding. He has prayed for release of full pension, DCRG and Leave Encashment amounts only. We deem it appropriate to confine ourselves to adjudication of issues involved in the relied prayed by the applicant.
5.3 Para 69 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is quoted below ;-
"(1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorize the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.
(b) The provisional pension shall be authorized by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.
(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon :
(1) Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA 1292/2023 (2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period."
Rule 39 (3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is reproduced below :-
"39. (3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him on conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any."
The abovequoted rules gives the authority to the employers to pay provision pension and withhold DCRG and Leave Encashment dues of a Central Government employee if Disciplinary Proceeding is pending against him at the time of his retirement.
5.4 In its final order dated 05.10.2016 in OA no. 1798/2015 (D. K. Gupta vs. Union of India & Ors.), Principal Bench, CAT has observed as follows :-
"7. The following facts emerge:
(i) The applicant has retired on 31.01.2015 and, therefore, normally he would expect all his retirement dues to be paid but gratuity has been held up in view of provisions of Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972;
(ii) A departmental proceeding is pending against the applicant and the respondents could not give any intimation by when this would be completed;
(iii) In D.V. Kapoor (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no provision of law brought to their Lordships notice under which the President is empowered to withhold gratuity. The order to withhold gratuity is thus illegal and devoid of jurisdiction;
(iv) In Vijay L. Mehrotra (supra) and Prem Nath Bali (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that payment of pensionary dues should be on the date of retirement and a maximum outer limit of one year has been indicated to complete departmental proceedings. Clearly, the respondents have not followed the timeline and there has been delay in payment of CGEGIS, leave encashment and gratuity;
and Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA 1292/2023
(v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that it is impermissible under law to make recoveries from retired government servants."
In OA no. 78/2018 (Bhagwan Das vs. Union of India & Ors.), Allahabad Bench, CAT in its order dated 15.04.2023 has observed as under :-
"13. The applicant has quoted some case laws in their favour, i.e. Writ Petition No. 27391 of 2012 - Udai Narain Ojha vs. State of UP thorough its Secretary and others where he states that the Hon ble High Court rules that gratuity cannot be withheld for an indefinite period and only if he delays the criminal trial (delays specifically attributable to the applicant) it can be withheld. He further draws my attention towards para 9 and 10 of the judgment, which reads following:-
"9. Even otherwise, the period of 4 years is a reasonable period from the date of the event, leading to submission of charge-sheet and the employee cannot be made to suffer for any un-explained or undue delay on the part of the State or the investigating agency. It is, otherwise, not shown by the respondents that such delay was attributed to any act or omission on part of the petitioner. The right of State to proceed in accordance with law, is otherwise available by virtue of Article 351 of Civil Services Regulations if the charges are found proved in judicial proceedings and the public interest also would not be adversely affected, if the gratuity due is paid to the government servant. In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that action of respondents in withholding payment of gratuity to petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained.
10. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.1.2012 passed by the respondent no. 3, so far as it relates withholding of gratuity payable to petitioner is concerned, is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to forthwith release the withheld amount of gratuity together with 6% interest. In case the amount is not paid within four months from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 8% per annum, and it shall be open for the authorities of the State to realise the additional interest from the salary of the officer found responsible for not ensuring release of gratuity to petitioner in terms of this order".
14. Simple reading of the above ratio of judgment it is clear that withholding of gratuity per se is not prohibited in rule, but it should not be for a very long undefined period, as in the said case before the Hon ble High Court a period of four years was considered as a reasonable period from the date of the event leading to the submission of charge sheet and the employee being made to suffer for unexplained and undue delay on the part of the State or investigating agency and as delay cannot be attributed to the accused Government servant, the Court had no hesitation in holding that action of the respondents in withholding payment of gratuity to the petitioner was wholly illegal and arbitrary and could not be sustained and they allowed the Writ Petition."
It is noted that the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the applicant on 07.09.2021. In spite of this Court's order dated 29.05.2023, it has Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA 1292/2023 not been finalized even on 09.01.2025 when this OA was finally heard. In fact, the respondents in their reply and also on the date of hearing have stated that they are still finalizing the proposal and folders for submission to their Directorate and the UPSC. From the submissions of the respondents no clear indication is available regarding the possible date of conclusion of the Disciplinary Proceeding. We have gone through the Articles of Charges against the applicant. He has been accused of supervisory failure as well as collusion with his subordinate resulting in misappropriation of cash by the said subordinate. In the Articles of Charges, there is no specific allegation of misappropriation of Government money by the applicant himself. Facts and circumstances of the instant OA are similar to those in the two OAs decided by the Coordinate Bench as referred to above. Therefore, the ratio enunciated in orders in OA nos. 1798/2015 and 78/2023 are applicable in the instant case. Also, in our opinion, though the cases referred to above are related to withholding of gratuity, principle and point of law is the same for withholding of other retiral benefits too.
5.5 Keeping in view the ratio in the conspectus of judgments of the Coordinate Bench in OA nos. 1798/2015 and 78/2023; the charges against the applicant and the length of period between withholding of the applicant's dues and the finalization of the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, which appears to be indefinite at the present stage, retirement benefits such as regular pension, DCRG and Leave Salary can no longer be withheld.
Respondents are therefore directed to release all retirement benefits to the applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in their office.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA 1292/2023 5.6 We, however, make it clear that no interest on the DCRG and Leave Encashment dues will be payable as they were withheld in pursuance of the provisions contained in CCS (Leave) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules and are being released by this specific order of the Court.
6. OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sl
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a LAL dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.01.21 15:36:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0