AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per se: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
“(a)to quash the impugned order dated 21/25.08.2020 issued by the opposite party No. 6 and contained as Annexure No. 1.
(b)to issue an order, direction and commanding to the respondent 1 to 6 to pay full pension, gratuity and all retirement benefits admissible to the Applicant.
(c)to allow the original application with cost against the respondent in view of the facts and circumstances, legal provisions and grounds raised in the Application.”
Tersely put, the case of the applicant is that applicant was employee of the Respondent Department and superannuated on 31.08.2020. On 01.09.2020, applicant received an information that vigilance clearance has been withheld due to as per office records charges have been framed by Spl. Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. in case no. 185/99, F.I.R. R.C. No. 18(S)/1992-Lucknow against the applicant.
Further pleaded that a Criminal Complaint had been filed by the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in administrative capacity and an F.I.R. having R.C. No. 18(S)/92-LKO against unknown person has also lodged by Hon’ble High Court before C.B.I.
It has been further stated that applicant never faced any departmental proceedings nor was punished by the authority for his work and conduct in his entire service period. Withholding the gratuity amount and full pension by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
Hence, this O.A.
Respondents by filing their counter affidavit have, inter-alia, stated that in the applicant’s case a compliant has been made before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Lucknow by the Officer on Special Duty (Litigation), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in view of the forged order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench on 25.06.1992.
On the basis of investigation/ enquiry report of CBI, the Hon’ble High Court filed a criminal compliant no. 185/1999 in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) against the applicant and other co-accused persons under various sections, which is presently at the stage of trial. Special Judicial Magistrate-I, CBI Court, Lucknow has framed the charges on 07.12.2017.
Further averred that a criminal /judicial proceedings is pending in the applicant’s case accordingly the competent authority sanctioned provisional pension as per rule 9 read with Section 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further alleged that as per Rule-69(1)(C) of CCS Pension Rule -1972 no gratuity shall be paid to the Govt. Servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final order thereon.
O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
Applicant filed rejoinder affidavit stating therein that neither the disciplinary proceedings are pending nor department has suffered any loss by the conduct of the applicant, as such Respondents have no reason to withhold the gratuity/full pension and other admissible retiral dues merely on the basis pendency of criminal case which was filed by administration of the Hon’ble High Court.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no departmental proceedings were ever initiated against the applicant during entire service. Further argued that respondents have initiated departmental enquiry against Mohd. Farooq and V.K. Bajpai and exonerated them in the said enquiry on the ground that no misconduct or grave misconduct has been done by the said employees whereas applicant has been discriminated by the respondents.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid submissions and argued that in the similar fact situations, the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in Writ – A No. 2248 of 2021 [U.O.I. Thru Secy. Communication Ministry Deptt. Of Posts And Ors. vs. Mithai Ram And Anr.] has held that gratuity to a government servant cannot be paid until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and until final orders are issued thereon.
Learned counsel for the respondents referred judgment of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 473/2019 [ Rama Pati Chaubey v. UoI & Ors.] wherein on the basis of aforecited judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, OA has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that OA has no legs to stand and is liable to be dismissed.
In Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr., the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench has held that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 69 (1) (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on account of criminal case, a government servant is not entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon.
Relevant portion of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021-UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr. are reproduced herein below:
“……Rule 69 of the -Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is quoted hereunder:-
"69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending
(1)(a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in subrule (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 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 that 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."
In terms of the provisions of Rule 69 (1) (c), as quoted above, there is mandatory prohibition about payment of gratuity to a government servant who has retired until conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings and until final orders are issued thereon.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the criminal case no.66/06 and 66/07, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 262 and 263 IPC is pending trial. Thus, during the course of pendency of said criminal trial, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 69 (1) (c) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the claimant-respondent no.1 is not entitled to be paid the amount of gratuity till conclusion of the judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon. Our view is supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 23.04.2018 in Writ Petition No.19240 (SB) of 2016; Union of India and others vs. Raj Kishore Pandey and another. The said judgment in the case of Raj Kishore Pandey and another (supra) is based on the provisions of Rule 69 (1) (c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the clear opinion that the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which is under challenge herein is not sustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.362 of 2016 is hereby setaside and the Original Application itself is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed on the Review Petition No. 01 of 2020 filed by the petitioners herein by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.01.2020 is also hereby set-aside.
However, there will be no order as to costs..”
Thus, law on this point is that gratuity and full pension shall not be paid to a Government servant until conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issuance of final orders thereon.
Applying of the aforesaid law to the present case, it is admitted fact that applicant was employee of the respondent department who retired on 31.08.2020. A criminal case no. 185/99, F.I.R. R.C. No. 18(S)/1992-Lucknow is pending before the Spl. Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I. Lucknow wherein charges have been framed and trial is going on. Applicant retired from service during pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. A- 2248 of 2021- UOI Thru. Secy. Communication Ministry of Deptt. Of Posts and Ors. v. Mithai Ram and Anr., and Rule 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, applicant is not entitled for gratuity/ full pesnion as criminal case is pending till today against him
This Tribunal in similar fact situations in O.A. No. 473/2019 [ Rama Pati Chaubey v. UoI & Ors.] has dismissed the OA, hence, there is no reason to take different view in the present matter.
In view of above, the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.