Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ranjit Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 28 September, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 2578/2017
Order Reserved on: 25.09.2018
Order Pronounced on:28.09.2018
Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Mr. Ranjit Singh, Ret. SI (Min)
S/o Late Sh. Ganesha Ram,
R/o B-4/3 Police Station,
Defence Colony, New Delhi-110049 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Commission of Police,
Police Headquarters,
IP Estate, MSO Building,
New Delhi
2. Dy. Commission of Police,
Security Head Quarters,
Vinay Marg, New Delhi
3. The Pay & Accounts Officer,
Pay & Accounts Office-II (Delhi Police)
Man Singh Road, New Delhi
4. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
General Administration, PHQ,
IP Estate, New Delhi - Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi)
ORDER
The applicant has filed this Original Application (OA), seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) declare the impugned Office Memoranda/Order dated 25.05.2017 and 21.04.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, unjust, 2 inequitable and quash and asset aside the same and direct the Respondents to release/pay the funds, gratuity, commuted pension and other retirement benefits along with compound interest of 24% per annum;
b) direct the respondents not to interfere with the applicant and his family‟s peaceful possession/enjoyment of the allotted quarter at normal license fee i.e. Rs.310 per month till the entire amount as prayed above is released;
c) direct the Respondents to produce the service records of the applicant in respect of service rendered by him in the department, for perusal of this Hon‟ble Tribunal.
d) direct that the arrears which are due to the Applicant from 29.02.2016 till the payment of the same, be immediately paid to the Applicant herein along with compound interest at the rate of 24% per annum; and
e) pass such other and further orders as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents have issued impugned order dated 25.05.2017 deciding not to release the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Commuted Pension on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against him, which has been issued in violation of the law laid down by the various decision of this Tribunal in cases of Shri Dharamvir Singh v. The Commission of Police & Ors. (OA - 2353/2010) decided on 04.07.2011, Rtd. SI Yad Ram v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. (OA-870/2004) decided on 29.11.2006, Shri Mam Chand v. Union of India & 3 Ors. (OA-1605/2005) decided on 04.01.2006 and Jogeshwar Mahanta v. Union of India & Ors. (OA- 2411/2007) decided on 19.12.2008. The applicant in this OA has also challenged the Eviction Order dated 21.04.2017 with regard to his Govt. Quarter No.B-4/3, Type-II, PS-Defence Colony, New Delhi on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as he has not been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed their reply. It is contended by the respondents that as per the provisions of Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, regular pension and gratuity is not admissible till finalization of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon and as such, they have rightly withheld the amount of DCRG in light of the aforesaid provisions of Rules, 1972. The respondents have further contended that they have rightly issued the eviction notice dated 19.04.2017 to the applicant in respect of his aforesaid Govt. accommodation, as the same has been issued by the competent authority in exercise of the powers vested in DCP-General Administration, PHQ under Section 27(2) of Delhi Police Act-1978 read with Notification dated 16.11.1978 and there is no provision in Standing Order No.03/2015 to allow a retiree to retain further the Govt. 4 Accommodation beyond 8 months. The respondents have thus prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Insofar as relief clause (a) regarding release of the funds, gratuity, commuted pension and other retirement benefits is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that there is a criminal proceeding pending against the applicant on the basis of the complaint lodged by his daughter in law who is an estranged wife of his elder son. It is, thus, clear that this is a family dispute and in no manner related to the official duties of the applicant. In this context, the judgment relied upon by the applicant in Jogeshwar Mahanta‟s case (supra) is applicable to the present case where the following observations were made:-
"The Punjab & Haryana High court in Bal Kishan v Municipal Corporation, Faridabad [2002 (4) SLR 237], held as follows:
"It is the right of the employer to proceed departmentally against ifs Officer/Official if such officer/official commits such acts of commission or omission in the discharge of his official duties. Before a public servant is to be charge-sheeted the employer has to keep in his mind that charges must be in relation to the duties which are likely to be discharged by a public servant during the course of employment. Such public servant can also be charge-sheeted for his act of omission if those acts of omission flow from his duties. However, in the present case, the reading of the charges 5 would show that none of the charge relates to the duties of the petitioner."
While observing as above, the chargesheet against the petitioner was quashed. A single bench of the Gujarat High Court in Bodu Tarmamad v District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar & Another [1988 (2) SLR 65], wherein the charge against the employee was that he was a married man and yet he allowed a Hindu girl to stay with him in the Police line quarter, without performing marriage ceremony either as per Hindu rites or Mohammedan religion, and while interpreting the unbecoming conduct of a government servant as defined in rule 3(1)(iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, held as follows:
"13. The word „unbecoming‟ is not defined in the rules in question. Therefore, we have to go by the dictionary meaning of the word. Dictionary meaning of the word „unbecoming‟ is „indecorous‟, „not proper or befitting‟, „not suited to the wearer‟. In the context of the rules it would mean either „indecorous‟ or „not proper or befitting‟. However, while considering the conduct of a Government servant it is to be kept in mind that the conduct should be indecorous or improper as a Government servant. The disciplinary authority cannot determine the nature of conduct as indecorous or improper as per his own norms of behaviour and beliefs. Some guidelines are inherent in the Rules, and it is necessary that the same may be kept in mind.‟
13. In view of the discussion made above, `the charges as framed against the applicant in the articles of charge as reproduced above, in our view, cannot become the subject matter of departmental enquiry. That apart, there does not appear to be any justification for continuing the departmental enquiry against the applicant on the charges as mentioned above at this stage, when he has already retired. The applicant insofar as, his service record is concerned, had no blemish. He completed his tenure of service after a long spotless service career. In our view, 6 whereas he may be still embroiled in matrimonial dispute with his wife, there would be no justification to carry on with the departmental proceedings against him.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, charge memo dated 30.8.1993 is quashed. We may mention that no proceedings had been taken after serving of the charge memo dated 30.8.1993, even though, there was no stay granted to the applicant by the court of first instance where he initially filed the suit, or by the appellate court. The applicant, of course obtained stay when he filed RSA before the High Court in 2004.
15. This Application is allowed in the manner indicated above, leaving, however the parties to bear their own costs."
Hence, withholding of the gratuity and retiral benefits of the applicant on ground of a family dispute pending in the criminal proceeding is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, impugned order dated 25.05.2017 is set aside and the respondents are directed to release the funds, gratuity, commuted pension and other retirement benefits within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. As regards the relief clause (b) seeking a direction not to interfere with the applicant‟s possession of allotted quarter at normal license fee, the respondents have been able to show that before the eviction order dated 21.04.2017, the applicant was allowed to retain the aforesaid accommodation for 08 months as per rules and that as per the Standing Order No.03/2015, there is no 7 provision to allow a retiree to retain further the Govt. accommodation. Hence, the plea of the applicant to retain the said quarter on normal license feel till clearance of his dues by the department has no merits as clearance of dues and retention of Govt. accommodation are completely different issues having distinct aspect. Accordingly, the interim order granted on 16.08.2017 stands vacated and the respondents may recover the rent of the aforesaid Govt. accommodation at rates prescribed by rules beyond the period of 8 months, from the withheld amounts payable to the applicant, in accordance with rules.
6. With the above directions, the OA is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
(Nita Chowdhury) Member (A) /lg/