Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Surendra Nath Singh vs General Manager, N E Rly on 16 January, 2019
1
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Allahabad, this the _________ day of ________________, 2019
Present :
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member-J
Original Application No.330/00888/2013
Surendra Nath Singh, Son of Late Viswanath Singh, Resident of 579,
Krishna Nagar, Private Colony, Post - Basaratpur, Gorakhpur.
.......Applicant.
By Advocate -Shri Siddharth Saran
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Financial Advisor, Chief Account Officer (Admn.) North
Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
...... Respondents.
By Advocate : Ms. Shruti Malviya
ORDER
The applicant Surendra Nath Singh has filed this O.A. under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2013 passed by respondent No.2.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to release the amount of Death Cum retirement gratuity.2
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. release the commuted value of pension.
(iv) Issue any suitable order or direction in favour of the applicant as Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) To allow the application and award the cost in favour of the petitioner."
2. Case of applicant Surendra Nath Singh is that being appointed on 13.11.1975 and after having a service of 36 years 9 months 19 days, applicant retired from the post of Assistant Accountant from North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur on 31.08.2012. His death cum retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension has not been given to him. Vide letter dated 25.04.2013 (Annexure - I), applicant was informed by respondents that the post retiral benefits have been withheld due to pendency of criminal case No. 25A/97/CBI in Lucknow. Applicant avers that the case is pending and is at stage of evidence but averred that in view of settled law, the amount of gratuity and commuted value of pension cannot be withheld on the basis of pendency of criminal case.
3. In their counter affidavit, respondents have taken the plea that amounts have been withheld under Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 due to pendency of criminal case against the applicant.
4. I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record. The learned counsels for the parties have during the course of their 3 arguments reiterated the pleas taken by them in their respective pleadings.
5. As per annexure No. 1 to the Counter affidavit, the criminal case pending against the applicant is that applicant while posted snd functioning as Dealing clerk (Account Assistant) in Store Bill Section, O/o FA&CAO/Con/BG/NER/Gorakhpur the year 1994-95 entered into criminal conspiracy with other persons with the object to commit the offence of forgery, cheating and criminal misconduct.
6. Learned counsel for applicant argued that the mere pendency of a criminal case in the Court will not disentitle the applicant to get his gratuity and pensionary benefit.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent relying upon Rule 9 read with Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 argued that since admittedly a criminal case is pending against the applicant, as per, Rule 9/10, commuted pension and gratuity cannot be paid to the government servant i.e. the applicant.
8. Rule 9/10 of the Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993 lay down that a provisional pension shall be paid and no gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of judicial proceeding against the concerned officer. In the instant case, there is a criminal case connected with his official duties pending against the applicant.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court also dealt with this issue while interpreting Rule 52 (C) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 in the case of R. Veerabhadram Vs. Govt. of A.P., (1999) 9 SCC 43 in the context of analogous provisions of the corresponding Rules of Andhra Pradesh Government and upheld the action of the State government 4 to withhold the gratuity of the employee during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
10. Rules 52(c) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, reads as "No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon"
11. While interpreting 52(c) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Veerabhadram Vs. Govt. of A.P., (1999) 9 SCC 43 held that "The payment of gratuity was withheld, in the present case, since the criminal prosecution was pending against the appellant when he retired. Rule 52(c) of the A. P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 expressly permits the State to withhold gratuity during the pendency of any judicial proceedings against the employee. In the present case, apart from Rule 52(c), there was also an express order of the Tribunal which was binding on the appellant and the respondent under which the Tribunal had directed that death-cum- retirement gratuity was not to be paid to the appellant till the judicial proceedings were concluded and final orders were passed thereon. In view of this order as well as in view of Rule 52(c), it cannot be said that there was any illegal withholding of gratuity by the respondent in the case of the appellant."
12. Learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Service Single No. 582 of 2010, Appeal No. 1189 (S/B) of 2002 titled Bangali Babu Mishra v/s State of U.P. and Radhey Shyam Shukla v/s State of UP, 2009 LawSuit (All) 780. However, perusal of all the three judgments would reveal the facts of the said cases are entirely different from the facts of the present case and that 5 the gratuity etc was released since it was withheld in the absence any statutory provision which is not so, in the present case, where the retiral benefits have been held in accordance with Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
13. In the instant case, the allegation against applicant is that during his service tenure, he in criminal conspiracy with other persons committed the offence of cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct. It be noted notice that charges for which the applicant is facing trial in the criminal case filed by the C.B.I. are serious in nature: they involve offences of cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct, allegedly committed by the applicant while in Government service. These are surely not simple offences.
14. From the facts coming on the record, it is clear that pension and gratuity has been withheld by the respondents in terms of Rule 10 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 on the ground that judicial proceeding in shape of criminal case is pending against the applicant on the date of his superannuation and the criminal case is connected with his official duties.
15. In view of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that no good ground has been made by the applicant for allowing the application and quashing the impugned order. The O.A. being meritless, is dismissed. In circumstance of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Rakesh Sagar Jain) Member (J) RKM/