Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Viney Kamal (Staff No.Go 81956) vs Union Of India And Others Through on 27 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.1507 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 27th day of February,2015 CORAM HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AND HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. Shri Viney Kamal (Staff No.GO 81956), S/o late Shri Baldev Raj, Chief Accounts Officer (Retired), Working in Delhi Telephones Under Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, R/o AG 500, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110088 . Applicant (By Advocate: Mr.K.P.Gupta) Vs. Union of India and others through: 1. Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Information, Technology, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001 2. Principal Controller of Communication Accounts, (Delhi Region), Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication, D.T.O.Building, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi 110005 3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Door Sanchar Bhawan, 9, CGO Complex, 5th Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 .. Respondents (By Advocates: Shri Subhash Gosain for R 1 & 2; and Ms.Leena Tuteja for R-3) ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
We have perused the pleadings and have heard Shri K.P.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Shri Subhash Gosain, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Ms.Leena, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.
2. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) To release the pro rata pension and pensionary benefits like leave encashment, insurance money, arrears of pro rata pension, gratuity, etc., from the date when the applicant has retired on 1.10.2000 when the applicant had been absorbed in MTNL;
(ii) To direct the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% also on the entire amount of leave encashment, insurance company, arrears of pro rata pension, gratuity from the date when the aforesaid amounts were due to be paid till the date of actual payment.
(iii) To direct Respondent No.3 to release the provisional pension of the Applicant with arrears and interest.
(iv) That the cost of the proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.
(v) Any other or further relief which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
3. The applicant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Department of Telecommunications on 22.5.1973. He got promotions from time to time and reached the post of Chief Accounts Officer, a Group A post, in February 1997.
4. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) was established on 1.4.1986 to manage and control telecom services in two metropolitan cities, viz., Delhi and Mumbai. The officers and staff working in Department of Telecommunications in Delhi and Mumbai units were transferred en masse to MTNL on deemed deputation basis. Groups C and D employees were absorbed in MTNL with effect from 1.11.1998, and Groups A and B officers were absorbed in MTNL with effect from 1.10.2000. As per the option exercised by him on 28.2.2002, the applicant was permanently absorbed in MTNL with effect from 1.10.2000.
5. In the year 2009, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a criminal case against the applicant and another employee Shri Radha Krishan Gupta. He was placed under suspension.
6. In pursuance of the MTNLs letter dated 13.8.2010 (Annexure A/2), the applicant opted for pro rata pension in respect of his service rendered under the Central Government, i.e., the Department of Telecommunications up to 30.9.2000, vide his option dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure A/3).
7. During pendency of the criminal case and suspension, the applicant was deemed to have retired from service of MTNL on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2012.
8. As pro rata pension for the period of his service from 22.5.1973 to 30.9.2000 rendered under the Department of Telecommunications, and pension and other pensionary benefits, such as, gratuity, leave encashment, commuted value of pension, and insurance amount, for the period of his service from 1.10.2000 to 31.8.2012 rendered under the MTNL, were not paid soon after his retirement, the applicant made representations to the respondents claiming payment of the aforesaid pensionary benefits.
9. Respondent-Department of Telecommunication, vide letter dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure A/1), intimated the applicant as follows:
Your case was taken up with MTNL for redressal. The response received therefrom is as under:
Since one disciplinary case is pending against Sh.Vinay Kamal, provisional combined pension of Rs.23985/- PM w.e.f. 01.09.2012 (superannuation) has been sanctioned. However, DCRG and Commutation has been withheld till the receipt of final vigilance clearance. CAO (PF& P) has intimated Sh.Vinay Kamal on 11.01.2013 to collect the cheque towards arrear of provisional pension w.e.f. 01.09.2012 amounting to Rs.1,15,117/- (net amount) from AO (Pen-Cell) STD Hall E/Courts ND on any working day personally. In view of above, your case is being closed. Pension Portal Cell DoT.
10. In this O.A., the applicants grievance is that he has not been paid (i) pro rata pension for the period of his service from 22.5.1973 to 30.9.2000 rendered under the Central Government, i.e., the Department of Telecommunications, (ii) pension for the period of his service from 1.10.2000 to 31.8.2012 rendered under the MTNL, (iii) commuted value of pension, (iv) Gratuity, (v) leave encashment, and (vi) insurance amount. It is also the grievance of the applicant that although provisional pension @ Rs.23,985/- was sanctioned in his favour with effect from 1.9.2012, payment of the same was stopped from February 2013 without any rhyme or reason.
11. The respondents, while resisting the claim of the applicant, have stated that as on the date of his retirement, i.e., 31.8.2012, criminal case was pending against the applicant, provisional pension was paid to him. and payment of Gratuity, Leave Encashment, and Commuted Value of Pension was withheld until the conclusion of criminal case and issue of final orders thereon. In support of their plea, the respondents have referred to Rules 9 and 9(4) and 69 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules,172, and Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.
12. As regards the claim of the applicant for payment of pro rata pension for the period of his service rendered under the Central Government, i.e., the Department of Telecommunications, the applicant, vide his letter dated 1.11.2012 (Annexure R-2), submitted claim papers for grant of pension for the combined period of service rendered by him under the Central Government, i.e., the Department of Telecommunications as well as under the MTNL. On that basis, Respondent-MTNL, vide letter dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure R-3), granted him provisional pension of Rs.23,985/- per month with effect from 1.9.2012 for the said combined services because of the pendency of the criminal case against him on the date of retirement. At page 3 of his rejoinder reply, the applicant has stated as follows:
.However, the contention of the respondents that the applicant had submitted claim papers for combined pension which request was processed by the answering respondents in accordance with law and pension was sanctioned is correct. The letter dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure R-3) issued by the respondent-MTNL reads thus:
To The Accounts Officer (Pension), Head Qtr.MTNL, NEW DELHI.
Sanction of the C.A.O. (PF & P) is hereby accorded for the payment of Provisional Pension of Rs.23,985.00 (Rs.Twenty three thousand nine hundred eighty-five only) w.e.f. 1.9.2012 of Shri Viney Kamal-81956 retired on 31.8.2012.
The Provisional Pension will continue up to the dateon which the Final orders is passed by the competent authority. IDA relief is also admissible as per rules.
The amount is debitable to 135020 (provisional pension). Sd/ Sr.Accounts Officer (pension cell) O/o CGM, MTNL, STD BLDG Eastern Court Complex, New Delhi 50 Copy to:
1. A.O. (Pension), MTNL, Eastern Court, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Viney Kamal GO 81956, AG-500, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 88.
Sd/ Dy.Manager (Pen Cell) HQ Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
New Delhi. From the above, it is clear that the applicant had submitted claim papers for pension for the combined period of his service under the Central Government and MTNL, and that he had been granted provisional pension because of pendency of the criminal case on the date of his retirement. Rule 37-A(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, stipulates that a permanent Government servant who has been absorbed as an employee of a Public Sector Undertaking and his family shall be eligible for pensionary benefits (including commutation of pension, gratuity, family pension or extraordinary pension),on the basis of combined service rendered by the employee under the Government and under the Public Sector Undertaking in accordance with the formula for calculation of such pensionary benefits as may be in force at the time of his retirement from the Public Sector Undertaking or his death, or at his option, to receive benefits for the service rendered under the Central Government in accordance with the orders issued by the Central Government. The applicant has not shown any rule or instruction issued by the Respondents laying down that an employee, like the applicant, who opts and is granted provisional/final pension for the combined service under the Central Government and Public Sector Undertaking( in this case MTNL) is entitled for any pro rata pension for the service rendered under the Central Government. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the applicant for pro rata pension for the service rendered by him under the Department of Telecommunications.
13. Though the applicant admitted the fact of payment of provisional pension in the O.A. filed by him on 3.5.2013, yet he did not mention therein about stoppage of payment of provisional pension for the combined service. He stated about stoppage of payment of provisional pension with effect from February 2013 for the first time in his rejoinder. The respondents have not filed any further counter reply refuting the said statement made by the applicant in his rejoinder.
14. The Tribunal, vide order dated 9.9.2014, observed as follows:
Ms.Leena, counsel for respondent No.3, today, handed over a cheque of Rs.6,23,414/- in respect of the provisional pension arrears up to August, 2014 to the applicants counsel. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that provisional pension for future months shall be paid by way of cheques, which would be collected by the applicant on visit to the office. Accordingly, future cheques would be collected by the applicant from the office as per the rules.
List the O.A. for final hearing on 13.10.2014.
15. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 13.10.2014, 2.12.2014, 6.1.2015 and 7.1.2015 when the learned counsel appearing for the applicant did not mention any further grievance of the applicant with regard to non-payment of the provisional pension. On 23.1.2015, when the matter was finally heard, the learned counsel also did not make any submission in that regard. Thus, it has to be inferred that the applicant has regularly been receiving his provisional pension for the combined service under the Central Government and the MTNL.
16. As regards the claim of the applicant for payment of insurance amount, the respondents have neither specifically asserted to have made payment of the same, nor have they assigned any reason as to why the insurance amount has not been paid to the applicant soon after the date of his retirement. Therefore, we find it necessary to issue appropriate direction in this regard.
17. It was submitted by Shri K.P.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that there was no criminal case pending against the applicant on 31.8.2012,i.e., the date of his retirement, because the charges were framed against the applicant only in March 2013. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents have acted illegally and arbitrarily in granting provisional pension and in withholding gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits payable to the applicant on his retirement. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, Civil Appeal No.6770 of 2013, decided on 14.8.2013; the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Tulsi Ram Arya vs. Chairman, DVB and others, WP ( C ) No.618 of 2001, decided on 31.1.2013; and the decisions of the Tribunal in Sri Dharamvir Singh vs. The Commissioner of Police and others, OA No.2353 of 2010, decided on 4.7.2011; Daya Nand Sharma vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, OA No.1522 of 2007, decided on 8.1.2008; and Sh.I.Yesudanam vs. UOI & another vs. Union of India and another, OA No.2281 of 2009, decided on 8.1.2010.
18. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent-MTNL in granting provisional pension to the applicant and in withholding gratuity, leave encashment, etc., as criminal case was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement. They invited our attention to the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Sh.Navendra Kumar vs. MTNL, WP ( C ) No.582 of 2010, decided on 29.1.2010. Besides, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MTNL submitted that as per the O.M. dated 28.4.2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Telecommunications, payment of pensionary benefits to all categories of erstwhile employees absorbed in MTNL, who have opted for pension on combined service will be made by the Government in the same manner as in BSNL with effect from 1.10.2000.
19. We have carefully perused the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
20. In Jitendra Kumar Srivastavas case (supra), though two criminal proceedings were pending against him for alleged commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act on the date of his retirement, yet the respondent was governed by the Bihar Pension Rules, in which there was no provision empowering the authority to withhold pension, gratuity and leave encashment leave encashment, and the appellant-State withheld his leave encashment on the basis of administrative/executive instructions, and the Honble Supreme Court held that withholding of the leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative/executive instructions could not be countenanced. The Honble Apex Court also held that had there been any such provision in the statutory rules, the position would have been different.
21. In Tulsi Ram Aryas case (supra), the Honble High Court of Delhi took the view that the criminal case, which was pending against the petitioner was under Section 498-A IPC, had nothing to do with any misconduct of the petitioner performing service as an employee of the employer and therefore, there never arose any issue of pecuniary loss to the employer as mentioned in Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, the Honble Court directed the respondent-employer to release all the service dues, including terminal benefits, to the petitioner.
22. In Dharamvir Singhs case (supra), the applicant was denied his full pensionary benefits because of the pendency of the criminal case against him. The Tribunal, following the its earlier decisions in Retd. Sub Inspector Yad Ram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, OA No.870 of 2004, decided on 29.11.2004, and Sh.Mam Chand v. Union of India and others, OA No.1605 of 2005, decided on 4.1.2008, allowed the O.A. filed by applicant-Dharamvir Singh and directed the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to him.
23. In Retd.Sub Inspector Yad Rams case (supra), criminal case was instituted against the applicant for alleged commission of offences under Sections 498 and 406 IPC. The Tribunal observed that the criminal case, which was pending against the applicant, had no connection with his service and did not relate to any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. As grave misconduct was not established in the case of the applicant and the criminal case remained undecided, it would be quite unfair to make the applicant suffer for want of his retirement dues. The objective of withholding his gratuity/normal pension because of the said criminal case pending against him, thus, did not appear to be quite clear. It was also not known how much time the criminal proceedings would take before the same are concluded. Under the circumstances, it did not appear to be quite logical and rational to continue to deprive the applicant of normal pension and other retirement benefits.
24. Following its decision in Retd.Sub Inspector Yad Rams case (supra), the Tribunal also granted relief to the applicant in Sh.Mam Chands case (supra).
25. In Daya Nand Sharmas case (supra), the Tribunal held thus:
10. From above it is clear that the report to be filed by a Police Officer referred to in Rule 173 is when the officer in charge of Police Station or in the instant case CBI files the final report after completing its investigation and the cognizance is taken by the Magistrate only after the said report is filed and if in the opinion of Magistrate, he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceedings in the matter. Therefore, mere registering the case would not get covered under Rule 9(6)(b) because it specifically states that judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings on the date when report of a Police Officer is made of which the Magistrate takes cognizance. Therefore, there are two ingredients, which are required to be fulfilled before this Rule can be given effect to. In view of above, if the facts of present case are seen, it is noticed that even though criminal cases were registered by the CBI against the applicant as back as in the years 2005 and 2006 and there may be serious charges against the applicant but the fact remains that charge sheet / report of Police Officer was finally filed by CBI only on 10.4.2006 whereas applicant had already retired on superannuation on 31.3.2006, therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that judicial proceedings were instituted against the applicant on the date when he retired. In this view of the matter, I would agree with the counsel for applicant that applicants gratuity could not have been withheld by the respondents.
26. In Sh.I.Yesudanams case (supra), while declining to accede to the applicants claim for payment of final pension, commutation of pension, and gratuity, due to institution and pendency of the criminal case against him on the date of his retirement, the Tribunal held that in the absence of any decision being taken by the competent authority expressing satisfaction that there were sufficient reasons for withholding the leave encashment in terms of Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave)Rules,1972, the withholding of the applicants leave encashment was unjustified, and accordingly, directed payment thereof with interest.
27. In Sh.Navendra Kumars case (supra), the Honble High Court held that under Rule 5(43) of the MTNL (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1998, MTNL was justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the employee for the alleged misconduct committed when he was in the Government service, and that if the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, are applicable to the employees of the MTNL, then under Rule 9 the power is with the MTNL-authorities to withhold pension and gratuity in the event of an employee being found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the departmental and judicial proceedings during the period of service and thus, the MTNL-authorities are justified in withholding the pension and gratuity of the employee-petitioner till the decision of the departmental proceedings.
28. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the above decisions, we have to consider the rival claims of the parties.
29. It is the statement of the respondents that a criminal case was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement and has not yet been concluded. Therefore, final pension was not payable to the applicant until the conclusion of the criminal case. Provisional pension was paid to him under Rule 69(1)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He was ineligible to commute a percentage of the provisional pension under Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Payment of his gratuity was withheld under Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972. His leave encashment was withheld under Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave)Rules, 1972.
30. Rule 9(4)&(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus:
9(4). In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2), a provisional pension as provided in Rule 69 shall be sanctioned.
xx xx (6) For the purpose of this rule (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be
instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.
31. Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, reads thus:
69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending.
(1) (a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorize the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.
(b) The provisional pension shall be authorized by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the Competent Authority.
(c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon:
Provided where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.
(2) Payment of provisional pension made under sub-rule (1) shall be adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government servant upon conclusion of such proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period.
32. Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 reads thus:
4. Restriction on commutation of pension:
No Government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings as referred to in Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, have been instituted before the date of his retirement, or the pensioner against whom such proceedings are instituted after the date of his retirement, shall be eligible to commute a percentage of his provisional pension authorized under Rule 69 of the Pension Rules or the pension, as the case may be, during the pendency of such proceedings.
33. Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave)Rules, 1972 reads thus:
(3) The authority competent to grant leave may withhold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave in the case of a Government servant who retires from service on attaining the age of retirement while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him, if in the view of such authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion of the proceedings, he will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of Government dues, if any.
34. A combined reading of Rules 9(4) & (6) and 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, and Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave)Rules,1972, makes it clear that the date of institution of the criminal proceedings against a retiring Government servant is the determining factor for considering his eligibility for pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension, and leave encashment on or soon after the date of his retirement from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation.
35. Under Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, criminal proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted against a Government servant on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made. Undoubtedly, report of a Police Officer, referred to in Rule 9(6)(b)(i) ibid, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is the report of the Police Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made to the Magistrate. The said report is commonly known as charge sheet. In the instant case, the CBI registered the FIR and/or the criminal case against the applicant in 2009. It is, thus, to be seen as to on which date the charge sheet was filed by the CBI against the applicant and the Magistrate took cognizance thereof. Both the applicant and the respondents have not disclosed in their pleadings as to on which date the charge sheet was filed by the CBI against the applicant and the Magistrate took cognizance of the same. They have not filed the copy of FIR or the charge sheet in the criminal case and have also not disclosed the nature of offence or offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant and other co-accused. Though the applicant stated in his O.A. that charges were framed by the Court in March 2013, yet he did not disclose the details of the charges. The applicant has also not filed copy of the statement of charges framed by the Court.
36. In paragraph 4.7 of the O.A. the applicant has stated as follows:
That while working as DGM under MTNL, the Applicant, as well as, subordinate Shri Radha Krishan Gupta, who was working as Chief Accounts Officer were falsely implicated in a criminal case filed by CBI in which charges were framed against the Applicant, as well as Shri Radha Krishna Gupta in March,2013.
37. Respondent no.3-MTNL, at page 7 of the counter, in reply to paragraph 4.7, has stated thus:
4.7 Contents of para 4.7 are wrong and denied. It is denied that the Applicant have been falsely implicated in the criminal case as alleged. In support of the above statement, no document has been filed by Respondent No.3-MTNL either along with the counter reply or at the time of hearing.
38. Respondent nos.1 and 2, at page 7, in reply to paragraph 4.7 of the O.A., have stated as follows:
4.7 That the contents of Para no.4.7 of the present Original Application under reply are admitted only to the extent what are matter of record and rest of the same are wrong and denied. However it is submitted that it is a fact that during the year 2009, CBI registered a Criminal Case against the applicant and he was put under suspension. During the pendency of the Criminal Case and under suspension, the applicant deemed to have retired from service of MTNL on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2012. It is for the Court of Law to decide whether the CBI registered a false case or genuine one. This office is not in a position to comment on this issue.
39. In the above circumstances, this Tribunal is not in a position to arrive at a conclusion as to on which date the charge sheet/report was filed by the CBI against the applicant and the Magistrate/Court took cognizance of the same, and as to whether, or not, on the date of retirement of the applicant, i.e., on 31.8.2012, any criminal proceeding was instituted and/or pending against him. As the applicant has not been able to make out a case that the criminal proceeding was instituted against him after the date of his retirement, i.e., 31.8.2012, in terms of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, this Tribunal is not inclined to grant the reliefs claimed by him, except the relief with regard to payment of insurance amount.
40. But considering the facts that both the applicant as well as the respondents have suppressed material facts in their respective pleadings, and that the respondents have failed to disclose cogent, convincing and justifiable reasons in support of their decision/action impugned in the O.A., we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if we issue the following directions:
(1) The applicant shall, within a period of 10 (ten) days from today, produce before the respondents certified copies of the FIR and charge sheet filed by the CBI as well as the statement of charges, if any, framed by the Court in the criminal case against him;
(2) The respondents shall also take necessary steps to have the certified copies of the FIR and charge sheet filed by the CBI as well as the statement of charges, if any, framed by the Court in the criminal case against the applicant;
(3) The respondents shall find out the date of filing of the charge sheet by the CBI, of which the Court/Magistrate has taken cognizance, in the criminal case against the applicant and then determine the date of institution of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in terms of Rule 9(6)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972;
(4) The respondents shall then consider the eligibility of the applicant for final pension, gratuity, commutation of pension, and leave encashment, and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order, which shall be communicated to the applicant.
(5) The respondents, while considering the case of the applicant, as directed above, shall also keep in mind the observations made by this Tribunal in this order.
(6) The respondents shall make payment of the insurance amount to the applicant within 15 (fifteen) days from today, if the same has not already been paid to him.
(7) The respondents shall comply with the directions given in this order within thirty days from today.
41. In the result, the O.A. is partly allowed. No costs.
42. The Registry of the Tribunal shall communicate copies of this order to the learned counsel appearing for the parties and shall also send copies of this order to the respondents by Speed Post in course of the day.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN