Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ravindra vs Directorate Of Employment on 10 July, 2025
1
Item No. 48 O.A. No. 2681/2023
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2681/2023
This the 10th day of July, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Ravindra @ Ravindra Singh Parmar
S/o Late Sh. P.S Parmar
Aged about 61 years
R/o I-6, Lajpat Nagar-1,
New Delhi-24
[email protected]
Applicant
(By Advocate (s) : Mr. Shantwanu Singh)
Versus
Government of NCT Delhi
Through Director,
Directorate of Employment
IARl Complex, Pusa Road
New Delhi- 110012
Secy_lab [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate (s) : Ms. Deepika)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:- 2 Item No. 48 O.A. No. 2681/2023
Court No. V "8. (i) It-is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Respondents be directed to release Leave Encashment of the Applicant herein to the tune of Rs. 15,02,140/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs Two Thousand One Hundred Forty Only) within a period of 4 weeks / along with interest @ 12 % per annum of the date of superannuation of the Application, and/or
(ii) Pass any other order and/or direction as this Ld. Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure-A/1), which reads as under:-
"Sub: To know about status of leave and encashment case of undersigned.
Sir, Please refer to your letter dated 27.07.2023 on above cited subject vide which it was been informed that you have not received your leave encashment after your retirement on superannuation on 30.06.2022, and this department has been requested to take appropriate action in the matter.
In this regard it is informed that the matter was submitted before the competent Authority who has desired that matter may be resubmitted after the next date of hearing i.e. 09.08.2023.
Accordingly the decision take in the matter will be informed as and when the direction of the Competent Authority are received in the matter."
3. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. It has been contended that the applicant has suppressed material and facts. The present O.A. is not maintainable as no cause of action has approved. 3 Item No. 48 O.A. No. 2681/2023 Court No. V Reliance has been placed to Rule 39 (3) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which "allows withholding of leave encashment in the case of a govt. servant who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in view of the authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him." 3.1. He also states that a case FIR No. 43/2018 dated 20.02.2018, U/S 186/353/326/341/427/506/34 IPC was registered against Sh. Ravindra & Others at PS I.P Estate. The matter was pending trial in the court of Law (Tis Hazari courts). His name included in Doubtful Integrity List, for 2019.
4. During the course of the hearing it has been revealed that there is a subsequent development that on 14.05.2025, an order has been passed by the District Court (copy supplied). The relevant extracts of order dated 14.05.2025, reads as under:-
"As per the supplementary statement / complaint dated 03.04.2018, complainant identified the accused persons on the basis of CCTV Footage. The CCTV Footage was sent to FSL but the FSL report came with the remark that the footages could not be retrieved and analysed. Even the undersigned 4 Item No. 48 O.A. No. 2681/2023 Court No. V perused the CCTV Footages but all the footages were unreadable. When the CCTV Footages are unreadable and no TIP was conducted, it is beyond comprehension as to how all accused persons were implicated. It cannot be ignored that accused persons were given notice u/s 160 Cr. PC on 27.02.2018 while the supplementary statement of complainant was sent on 03.04.2018. Furthermore, the credibility of the supplementary statement recorded after around 1 month is in question as the allegations in the supplementary complaint and the allegations in original complaint are different. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Mandal Vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2023, SCC Online SC 651 observed that witness not disclosing facts at initial stage of enquiry is unreliable. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Budhan Singh and Ors. Vs. State, 2008(2) JCC 1017 held that statement made by the persons about an incident at the earliest point of time are to be given precedence then the one made after a lapse of time. There is nothing on record which can associate the present accused persons to the alleged offence. There is no damaged mobile phone produced on record. The entire case relied upon the CCTV Footage which is not readable. The statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of the security staff namely HC Jagdev is not sufficient as the statement was recorded on 27.02.2018. When HC Jagdev had already identified the accused persons, then why only notice u/s 160 Cr.PC was given to accused persons and why the IO waited for supplementary statement of complainant which was recorded on 03.04.2018. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid observations, there is no nothing on record which can associate the accused persons to the alleged incident. There is no sufficient material available on record to proceed with the trial against all accused persons. Accordingly, all accused are persons are discharges u/s 186 / 332/ 323/ 341/ 342/ 353/ 427/ 506/ 34 IPC."
5. Based on the aforesaid, let the competent authority amongst the respondents take a call and decide the case of the applicant to release of leave encashment to the tune of Rs. 15,02,140/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs Two Thousand One Hundred Forty) as 5 Item No. 48 O.A. No. 2681/2023 Court No. V per law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to mention that failure to which the applicant shall be also entitled to interest @ GPF rates.
6. The O.A. is disposed of in the above terms. Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7. No order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/