Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Rakesh Shrivastava vs M/O Railways on 28 November, 2023
1
OA No. 448/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 448/2019
Order Reserved on: 06.11.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 28.11.2023
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Rakesh Shrivastava s/o Shri B.S. Shrivastava, aged
about 61 years, r/o A-1, Aman Apartment, Near S.P.
Bungalow, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur-482001,
presently residing at C/o Satish Chandra Maini, B-9,
Triveni Avas, Police Line, Baran Road, Kota-324001.
Retired as ADSO, WCR, Kota
7389777523
....Applicant
Shri B.K. Jatti, counsel for the applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482002.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central
Railway, Kota - 324006.
.... Respondents
Shri Ashish Dadhich, proxy counsel for
Shri Anand Sharma, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: -
"8.1 That by a suitable writ/order or the directions the impugned order dated
02.05.2018 annexed as Annexure A/1 and the impugned order dated 1/8/2018 2 OA No. 448/2019 annexed as Annexure A/1-A be quashed and set aside.
8.2 That by a suitable writ/order or the directions the respondents be directed to release the amount of gratuity and commutation which has been withheld with effect from 1/8/2018 without any reason. 8.3 That by a suitable writ/order or the directions the respondents be directed to release full pension in favour of the applicant.
8.4 That by a suitable writ/order or the directions the respondents be directed to pay a justify interest with the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of gratuity and commutation.
8.5 Any other relief which the Hon'ble bench deems fit."
2. In short, the applicant states that a charge memo dated 23.01.2015 was served upon him. A detailed inquiry was conducted in the matter and after concluding the inquiry, an order dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure A/2) was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the inquiry report, the applicant was found guilty of charges levelled against him, therefore, a punishment order dated 25.01.2018 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which reads as follows: -
"In view of above and considering the nature of charges / misconduct, I impose a penalty of "Reduction to six stages lower in the time scale of pay of Level-10 from Rs. 95,500/- to Rs. 80,000/- for a period upto 30.06.2018 and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay" with 3 OA No. 448/2019 immediate effect on Shri Rakesh Shrivastava, AXEM/C/CATR, now working as ADSO/Kota."
3. The applicant states that the punishment awarded to him has also been exhausted and presently no punishment or any departmental disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. The effect of the punishment order dated 25.01.2018 was upto 30.06.2018 and after expiry of the said punishment order dated 25.01.2018, no punishment is in currency. It is also stated that on attaining the age of superannuation, the applicant retired on 31.07.2018. As per the service certificate, the amount of commutation and gratuity has been withheld and a provisional pension has been allowed by the respondents. When the pensionary benefits were not released, the applicant filed an application under RTI and it was informed by the respondents vide information dated 06.08.2018 that there is no pendency of any departmental proceedings against him. Thereafter, again applicant made application dated 16.08.2018 under RTI Act asking certain rules under which the action of withholding of pensionary benefits was taken but the respondents failed to provide any Rule position. Thereafter, the applicant made an appeal dated 26.09.2018 before the 4 OA No. 448/2019 appellate authority and in return, the applicant was informed that due to pendency of the criminal case, the pensionary benefits have not been released. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents, he had filed OA No. 52/2019 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide its order dated 01.02.2019, directed the respondents to consider the O.A. as a representation of the applicant and decide the same in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order and it was made clear that the applicant may also be afforded an opportunity to be heard in person before a decision is taken in the matter and in the event of an order prejudicial to his interest, he shall be at liberty to file a substantive O.A. for the purpose. In pursuance to the directions of this Tribunal, the applicant submitted a representation dated 28.02.2019 along with the order of this Tribunal dated 01.02.2019 but the same has been rejected by the respondents vide its order dated 02.05.2019, (Annexure A/1). Hence, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. In reply, the respondents have stated that an FIR dated 03.02.2012 was registered against the applicant under Sections 354, 294, 323, 506 IPC. According to final report dated 15.05.2012, the charges were found 5 OA No. 448/2019 legitimate for the offences under IPC and the applicant was formally arrested by police and later on, he was released on bail/bond. The information regarding current status of the criminal case against the applicant has not been provided by him, therefore, according to Para 10 of Pension Manual 1993, provisional monthly pension was given to the applicant on his retirement and the amount of Gratuity and Commutation has been kept in Deposit Amount subject to the decision of the Court. As far as the question of representation filed by the applicant dated 28.02.2019 is concerned, the respondents have duly replied the same by way of letter dated 02.05.2019 stating that criminal case is pending against the applicant under FIR No. 182/2012 and this office has not received the information of its disposal, therefore, according to Para 10 of Pension Manual, 1993, provisional monthly pension was given to the applicant on his retirement and the amount of gratuity and commutation has been kept in Deposit Amount subject to the decision of the Court. Further, it is submitted that whenever the information regarding disposal of criminal case will be received by the department, the provisional pension of the applicant 6 OA No. 448/2019 will be regularized and deposit amount (gratuity and commutation) will be given to the applicant.
5. In rejoinder, the applicant has submitted that against the misconduct so committed by the applicant, the respondents had already given punishment and as on date, no departmental enquiry or proceeding is pending against the applicant and the criminal proceedings, which are pending, are not related with the office duties of the applicant, therefore, the action so taken by the respondents is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following orders / judgments: -
"(i) CAT, Jaipur Bench order dated 11.09.2018 passed in the case of Yogesh Kumar Panchal vs. UOI & Anr. (OA No. 218/2017)
(ii) CAT, Jaipur Bench order dated 03.08.2022 passed in the case of Hargyan Jatav vs. Principal Accountant General (Audit-1) (OA No. 07/2022)
(iii) Hon'ble Apex Court judgment / order dated 14.12.2012 passed in the case of Y.K. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14570 of 2012)
(iv) Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench judgment / order dated 27.01.2017 passed in the case of H.R. Choudhary vs. BSNL vs. C.A.T., Jaipur Bench & Ors.
(DBCWP No. 12437/2012).
7OA No. 448/2019
6. Heard both the sides and gone through the material placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments on 06.11.2023, Shri B.K. Jatti, learned counsel for the applicant stated that the main reliefs sought for by the applicant to release the amount of gratuity, commutation and full pension have been granted to the applicant. However, the applicant has not been granted any interest thereon; therefore, he presses the present O.A. to a limited extent of interest to be granted to the applicant for the delayed payments as above.
8. It is an admitted fact that a charge memo dated 23.01.2015 was served upon the applicant and after concluding the enquiry, an order dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure A/2) was passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of "reduction to six stages lower in the time scale of pay of Level-10 from Rs. 95,500/- to Rs. 80,000/- for a period upto 30.06.2018 and on expiry of the period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay" with immediate effect upon the applicant. It is noticed that the punishment awarded to the applicant has been exhausted and over on 30.06.2018 i.e. earlier than his retirement 8 OA No. 448/2019 (retired on 31.07.2018) and, as such, no punishment or any departmental disciplinary proceeding was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement. More so, the effect of the punishment order dated 25.01.2018 was upto 30.06.2018 and thereafter, no punishment is in currency. As per the service certificate, the amount of commutation and gratuity has been withheld and a provisional pension has been allowed by the respondents.
9. In the case of Yogesh Kumar Panchal (supra), this Bench of the Tribunal considering the various Rules including Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 has held that if criminal judicial proceedings initiated against a railway servant by a private person/agency other than the Department is pending in the competent court, then this should not be an impediment to the release of DCRG, (gratuity) and final pension. In the present case, as per the charge No. 2, the applicant was arrested by Civil Police on 02.05.2012 in Chattarpur under Sections 354, 294, 323, 506 of IP on the basis of complaint of molestation and threatening lodged by Ku. Darshika Dubey. Therefore, it appears that the criminal case pending against the applicant is not one which is related to his official activity. This Tribunal had 9 OA No. 448/2019 directed the respondents to release the DCRG, (gratuity) payable to the applicant and also process and finalize the case for pension and commutation payable to him, as per rules. Therefore, we are of the view that no impediment remains to the grant of DCRG, Gratuity and final pension to the applicant especially since the departmental proceedings also initiated against the applicant and after conclusion he has been punished by the department and the punishment was also over before his retirement.
10. In the case of Hargyan Jatav (supra), this Bench of the Tribunal had observed that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the respondents have already paid the gratuity amount and also allowed commutation of pension. Thus, the main reliefs prayed by the applicant have already been granted. The issue that remains is whether the applicant is entitled for grant of what is prayed as further relief ("interest on arrears"). This Tribunal had further observed that only judicial proceedings for any act which could be termed as misconduct under the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, shall come under the purview of Rule 9 and Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. In that case, the judicial proceedings pending before the court, prima- facie, do not appear to be a misconduct that would 10 OA No. 448/2019 have attracted disciplinary action under the conduct rules. Therefore, the action of the respondents to withhold the gratuity on that account is unjustified. The retirement benefits, as held in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court, are not a bounty to be given or withheld at the whims and fancies of the employer. Hence the delayed release of the gratuity, in that case, certainly deserves to be compensated by allowing payment of interest. This Tribunal had directed the respondents to pay interest, at the rate of currently prevailing GPF rates, for the delayed release of gratuity amount of Rs. 16,42,856/-, from the date of the applicant's retirement i.e. 30.09.2019, till the date the gratuity was finally released on 12.01.2022 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which further interest (on this amount of interest that the respondents have been found liable to pay by this order), at the rate of the currently prevailing rate of interest on GPF, shall be payable to the applicant, from the date of release of gratuity i.e. 12.01.2022 till the date the actual payments are released.
11. In view of the observations made above, we are of the view that since the applicant has already been granted the amount of gratuity, commutation and full 11 OA No. 448/2019 pension, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, now the applicant is held entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity, commutation and arrears of pension from the date of his superannuation till the actual date of payment.
12. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay simple interest on the amount of delayed payment of gratuity, commutation and arrears of pension, at the rate of currently prevailing GPF rates from the date of applicant's retirement i.e. 31.07.2018 till the actual date of payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which further simple interest (on this amount of interest that the respondents have been found liable to pay by this order) at the rate of the currently prevailing rate of interest on GPF, shall be payable to the applicant from the date of expiry of three months till the actual payments are released.
13. With these observations and directions, the present Original Application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER /nlk/