Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Sohan Prakash Verma vs M/O Finance on 10 May, 2022
(OA No.339/2020)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O.A.No.339/2020
Reserved on:05.05.2022
Pronounced on:10.05.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
Sohan Prakash Verma son of Late Shri D.S. Verma aged
about 64 years, resident of Plot 46, Sriram Nagar-II,
Raghu Path, Kanta Jhotwara, Jaipur-203012 (Raj.).
Retired from the post of Assistant Commissioner, Central
Excise Commissionerate, Jodhpur Headquarter, Jodhpur.
...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Mathur)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Kinshuk Jain)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
In this OA, the applicant has prayed for release of gratuity, commuted value of pension and regular pension. The applicant has also prayed for payment of arrears with interest @ 18% per annum, besides cost of the OA.
2. The case of the applicant is that he was served a chargesheet a month prior to his retirement on 31.01.2016.
(OA No.339/2020) (2) The Inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry in this matter, found the applicant not guilty. However, a notice was served on the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and the applicant had responded to it. When no decision was taken even after filing of this reply, the applicant had approached this tribunal with OA No.300/2016. This Tribunal, by its orders dated 02.12.2019 gave two months' time to the respondents to take a decision on the applicant's reply. The respondents have neither issued any punishment order nor released payment of his retirement dues since then. An application filed by the respondents seeking more time from the Tribunal, to comply with the Tribunal's order was withdrawn by them. The applicant claims that after the expiry of two months period given by the Tribunal for passing orders, the respondents do not have any authority to pass any orders in the disciplinary proceedings and they must release all his pensionary benefits.
3. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant. It is stated that the competent authority had already taken a decision following the reply of the applicant, as directed by the Tribunal (though not within the given period). The Disciplinary Authority rejected the applicant's representation dated 30.08.2017 and has tentatively approved the case for imposition suitable penalty. The (OA No.339/2020) (3) matter has been sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for consultation required under the rules. The delay has been on account of some deficiency pointed out by the UPSC, and it is being resubmitted. The specific provision of the CCS (Pension) Rules [Rule 69(1)(C) (Pension) Rules] prohibits payment of gratuity till final orders are passed in any judicial or department proceedings pending against an employee.
4. No rejoinder has been filed in this matter.
5. The matter was finally heard on 05.05.2022. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that no order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant now, since it has not been done within the period allowed by the Tribunal in OA No.300/2016. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the matter was with the UPSC and the Tribunal should dispose of this OA with a direction to the UPSC to give their recommendation within a reasonable time so that the disciplinary action can be finalized. The learned counsel for the respondents produced copies of the following judgments in support of his arguments (that gratuity can be stopped on account of pending disciplinary/judicial proceedings):
1) Manohar Lal (dead) by LRS. Vs. Ugrasen (Dead) by LRS. (2010) 11 SCC 557.
(OA No.339/2020) (4)
2) P.Yohan vs. Union of India & Others decided by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal on 19.01.2021 in OA/020/00988/2019.
3) Lakhminder Singh Brar vs. Union of India & Others decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal on 19.10.2009 in OA No.1991/2007.
6. We have gone through the pleadings and also perused the decisions cited by the learned counsels of the parties. The applicant was served a chargesheet for his alleged complicity in acts of exporting vastly overvalued readymade garments (to help an exporter illegally gain from a scheme of duty drawback). The main claim of the applicant, very strongly argued by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents cannot pass any orders in the disciplinary proceedings since they have not done so within the period prescribed by this Tribunal in its orders dated 02.12.2019 and the respondents have withdrawn their earlier prayer for extending the time. The respondents claim they have complied with the orders of the Tribunal dated 02.12.2019, which was only for taking a decision on the reply of the applicant and not for issuing a final order of punishment. We are reproducing the relevant portion of our orders in OA No.300/2016:
"3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant stated that a period of more than one year has been elapsed after filing reply to aforesaid disagreement-note but no action has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority. He (OA No.339/2020) (5) further submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to his Disciplinary Authority to take a decision over his reply to disagreement-note within a reasonable period.
4. Prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to applicant's Disciplinary Authority to take a decision over his reply submitted by him on 28.06.2018 pursuant to aforesaid disagreement-note. Before taking such a decision, the applicant shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The whole exercise shall be undertaken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs."
7. A plain reading of this order would show that the matter was disposed of on a specific request of the learned counsel for the applicant in that case, that the "applicant would be satisfied if a direction is issued to his Disciplinary Authority to take a decision over his reply to disagreement- note within a reasonable period." This order cannot, by any stretching of rules of interpretation or judicial propriety, be used to stop the respondents from issuing any further orders, if no orders (even if the applicant's claim in this regard was accepted) were issued following our direction, within the prescribed period. The respondents have categorically replied that a decision has been taken. The decision is to take further punitive action. It has been sent to the UPSC for consultation. They have denied the release (OA No.339/2020) (6) of gratuity under a specific provision of the rules. The applicant has neither challenged the constitutional validity of this rule, nor even claimed that the disciplinary proceeding has been finalized. He is only claiming that the proceeding cannot be finalized by now since, according to him, our orders in OA No.300/2016 have not been complied with. We do not agree with this argument which is not supported by any law or logic. The learned counsel promised to provide us decisions of courts which support his contention but none has been provided even though we have waited for three days after reserving the judgment.
8. Taking cognizance of the fact that though there is a clear prohibition of release of gratuity/other benefits, under CCS (Pension) Rules [Rule 69(1)(C) (Pension) Rules], stopping these benefits on account of prolonging the disciplinary proceedings indefinitely is certainly unjust, we had proposed to the learned counsel for the applicant whether the applicant would be satisfied if we directed the respondents to issue final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time. The learned counsel vehemently disagreed with this suggestion and argued that we "cannot" issue such orders. Delay defeats justice. It affects an honest and innocent person's ability to defend oneself, and also, sometimes the process itself becomes a (OA No.339/2020) (7) punishment. On the other hand, the delay also, sometimes, helps a delinquent from escaping the just deserts for one's acts of delinquency. Both these outcomes are equally undesirable. However, since the applicant does not want us to pass any orders directing the applicant for an expeditious and time-bound conclusion, respecting the sentiments of the learned counsel, we refrain from making any further suggestion in this regard.
9. Since the matter of disciplinary proceeding pending against the applicant has still not culminated by issuing any final order, we do not find anything against the rules in the case of applicant not releasing the gratuity and other benefits, the payment of which is prohibited under express provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules [Rule 69(1)(C) (Pension) Rules] of the law. We also do not agree with the applicant's contention that the respondents are barred from issuing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings only because he thinks they have not complied with the orders of this Tribunal in OA No.300/2016.
10. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/