Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sivaji Paul Alias Shibaji Paul vs Eastern Railway on 11 May, 2022
L GA, Ho. 850/00077/2021,
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA 8ENCH --
KOLKATA |
OLA. No.350/00077 /2021.
Date of order: [haf den
Hon'ble Ms Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Sivali Paul @ Shibaji Paul
Son of Late Jitendra Paul
Retired Reserve Superintendent,
N&G/E. Riv/Kolkata, attached fo the
Office of fhe Chief Commercial Manager (PM)
Eastern Railway, having Ns office ci
14, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 &
Rasicling al 60/a/lA Suren Sarkar Road,
Past Office & Police Station-Beliaghala
Kolkata-7O0010.
peeaneeee Applicant
1, Union of India,
Service through General Manager,
Eastern Raiiway, Sirand Road,
Kolkata-700001 .
9, The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
Fastam Railway, Srand Road,
Kolkata-7 0000} .
The Senior Personnel Officer (HQ)
Eastern Railway, Strand Road,
Kolkato-700001.
to
4. The Chief Commercial Manager {[PM),
Eastern Railway, Sirand Road,
Kolketta-7O0001.
5. The Commercial Superviser (5),
Fale Place Booking Olice,
Eastern Baiway, office of the
Commercial Supervisor (FP
Eastern Railway, New Kollaghaia,
Reservation office, 14, Strand Road,
Kotkoricr 700001 |
get tone ne,
& The Principal Financial Advisor,
Eastern Railway, Strand Road,
Rofkata-70000 1.
wise wRESPANGENS
Aclvacate for he applicant Mr S.&.Das & Mr A.Anmed
Acivoecais for the respondents > Mr kK. Sarkar,
ORDER
MS BIDISHA BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Heard counsel for fhe parties.
2. This application has been preferred fo seek the follo wing reliefs:
*q} A mandatory order be posed directing the Re espondent rane at Sw Rallwoy Authorities their men, agents, subordinates and ea hoane of them. to forthwith fake sfeps fo release fhe Final Pension, Death curn Reframent Grofuily, CVP, Leave Encashment amount & RELAS benefits along wih interest accrued thereon for unnecessary } withholding the same within a specified peviod of ime By exfending ihe benefits of the Judgment and reer passe ed iby ins Learned TA iunal in O.AAISI? af 2013 (Sukumar Mail va. Union of inca & Ors} which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court af Caiculta in Ws ECT Mo. 188 af 2016 {Union of India & Ors. Vs, Sukumar Moll] bi} To geass such other ¢ or further order ar ordiers as your Lordships moy deer fifand proper'
3. The admitted facts In a nutshell go thus -
That Sivaji Paul, Ex RS/NEG/E.RIy. the presen? applicant retired from Raliway service on 30.11.2019. While processing hls settlement dug, sr. LOVHQ vide letter caied 07.11.2019 informed that there was a criminal case bearing GR{S} No. §14/19 under Section 341, 323, 506, S04 & TT4 of IPC pending before the Ld. CMM Cour, Calcutta against Si Sisal Pal & 2 others in connection with Hare Street PS, Case Nod34/20)9 dated 27 04.2019, The CPO's SL No.154/2008 (RBE 158/2008} and Rule § & 10 of Railway Services Pension) Rules, 1993 provide thal in case of a railway sarvarl who has retired on ote aining the age s of superannuation or a a OLA. Ma. S50/00077/202 1, hss oihenwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted, a provisional pension withholding ratrament orafuily anc commulation of pension shall be granted, Moreover, case equivalent oi jeave salary payable al the time of sefflement may be withheld in terms of CPO's SLNo. 45/2010 [RBES3/2010) which is an amendment to Indian Railway Establishment Cocke Voll (1995 ecifian) Chapter Vl Leave Rules & Append: V-Sludy Leave Rules. Rule 6{B}(2}) af the saicl arnendment of leave rules provides that in case of retirameni from service on attaining the age of retirement while uncer suspension of while dis croceedings are pending against an employee at the tire of reiiremeni, the quihority competent lo grant leave may wilhholc whole or parl of casn equivalent of both leave on average pay or leave an half average pay in the case of a raihway servant who retires frorm service on alaning the age of retrernent while uncer suspension or while disciplinary ar ctiminal proceedings are pending agains! him, if the view of sucn authority there is a possibilily some money becoming recoverabie from himy on conclusion of the proceedings agains} him. Thal in view of the aforesaid provisions, as a criminal case is pending. Sn Paul was granite provisional pension vide PPO No.2019702 1000506 detec 27 November, 2019, Provident Fund amount and GIS, withholding DCRG, CVP and Leave ancashment. Accordingly, the applicant was informeci vide letters daied 318 December, 2019 and. 24" Seplember, 2020. Thal fhe payment was arranged as per exiant rules due fo pende acy of one criminal case before the Court of fhe Lol) CMM, Cohcuffa agains! fhe applicant a3 infimated by Sr. LO/HQ/ERly vide his letter No.G.351/628/10/2019/HO/4/LS dated 7) Noveniber, 2019, ciolinary & OLA, No B50 /00077 (2027, 4, Ai hearing Ld. Counsel for the applicant would place reliance on a decision of tals Tribunal in Sukumar Maili vs. Union of incia. in OA. P317/2013 where under simfar circumstances having noted that ihe apolicant § aggrieved as long alter superannuation from SENVvICe, ON -
982.1], on account of pendency of a criminal case the Raihvay Auihorifies have released only Providen! Fund amount, Leave Sclary, G5, a buf withheld the entire ICRG, commutation of pension, Composite Personal Gran} and RELRS benefils invoking Rule 30 of Railway Servarids (Pension) Rules, 1993 ane having considered several decisions end instructions on the subject Le. (i) WP 67793/14 (Sankar Singh Yadav -vs- Stafe of U.P. & Ors. (2015 (4) ADJ 236))}, (il) State of UP. & J Ors. -vs- Faini Singh, fi) D.S. Nakeara [1983 (1) SCC 305], (iv) O.A 264/2009 CAT Principal Bench, {v) GO (Ms) No. 124 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and ivi) Sub-section 1 of Secfion 4 of the Payment of Gratuify Ach 1972 this Tribunal hele:
"the retical dues of a pensioner could not be forfeited' without a conviction in a crmine! case ar a final arder in a ceparfmenial proceedings and no such benefits could be wiihhoicd uniess the proceedings carne "within the ambit of grave ralsconduct in discharge of public duty in office". No such recording or final order could be noticed in ihe case af hand. Moreover, Commutation of Pension, Composile Personal Grant and RELHS could not be withheld invoking Rule 10 supra, The respoendenis have failed fo clarify in what manner ihe applicant had incurred any liability te compensate the Railways for any loss caused due fo his 'alleged misconduct [drunkenness etc ana the reason why Rule 9 of Pension Rules was required fo be given a complete ge bye. The respondents have therefore miserably failed fo fushty withholding of the dues. For such recsons. would hold thal wifhhoicing of the setternent clues of fhe applicant in the manner if has Geen withheld was not justified, Accordingly fhe rescondents would disburse the enire withheld cues fo ihe agplicant within fwo months from ine dale of receipt of the copy of this order wih inferest an the arrears @ dete the dues accrued to the Governmen? servant No costs."
@ 8S oer annurn from the OA, No.3S0/00077/2021.
iS93 The order was affirmed in WPCT 168 of 2076, where the Hon'ble High Court considered afew more decisions :
fa} DV. Kapoor -vs- Union of India and Others, reported in (1990) 4 $cc 314;
{b) Jarnail Singh -vs- Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ofhers, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 47;
(ce) Bakshis Singh -vs- M/s Darshan Engineering Works and Ofhers, reported in (1994) 1 SCC ?
fd} Union of India & Ors. -vs-~ Samiran Ghosh, reported in 2072 SCC Online Cal 124864;
fe) State of Jharkhand and Others -vs~ Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Offers, reported in (2013) 12 8CC 210; :
ff) Shankar Singh Yadav -vs- State of U.P and 4 Ors, reported in 2015 SCC On Line All 748;
fg} An unreported judgment delivered In the case of Shyam Sundar Bhar & Ors, -vs- Union of india & Ors., AIR 1990 Calcutta 64.
5, Per contra, the respondents would vehemently opoose -- ifs applicability stating that the applicant has been booked under diferent sections af IPC in the criminal case bearing GR(S} No.S14/19 and the charge sheet being No.}27/19 hacl been submitted before the Ld. CMM/ Court, id. CMM/Calcuta after perusing jhe charge sheet along with aecomponied materials has taken cognizance u/s 190(2) of CrPC in respect of the offences U/s 341/823/506/504/114 of IPC against the applicant. Hence the offences charged against the applicant cannot be said to be minor in nature, That the subject referred case of Sukumar Maity is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case, in Sukumar Maily's case, a criminal case was iniliated against some of fhe amployees for charges under Sections 145/146/147 of Railway Act, 198? and not any of the sections under IPC. Hence there is a basic differance _ between the two incidenis.
é. The records were perused and the decisions supra considered.
COS.
6 "OLA, No.350/00077/2021.7. The applicant is yet to be convicted by a Court of Law, whereupon his conviction Rule 8 and of Pension Rules would gel attracted, bul not before that. This THbunal has already observed in Sukumar hMaity thal "the ratiral dues of a pensioner could nof be forfeited without a conviction ina . criminal case ora final order ina deparlmental proceedings and no such benefits could be withhold uniess the proceedings came "within the ambi of grave misconduct in discharge of public duty in office'. Hence for parity of reasons the dues are directed fo be released within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8 OAis accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(Bidisha Banerjee } Member (J} pg