Anil Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri R.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Satyajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

The instant Original Application has been filed seeking the following relief(s):

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Clerk in the respondents’ organization on 10.10.1983 at Agra and was thereafter transferred to Kanpur in the year 1984, where he continued to serve. The applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of Section Supervisor in Kanpur Division. It is the case of the applicant that just five days prior to his retirement, a memorandum of charge dated 25.11.2021 was served upon him alleging non-performance of duties in accordance with the prescribed procedure, negligence and Central Administrative Tribunal^{disobedience of the orders of superior authorities. The applicant attained the} age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.11.2021. It is stated that on the date of his retirement, he submitted all the necessary pension papers to the respondents. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his reply to the charge memorandum on 02.12.2021 contending, inter alia, that after his retirement, the relationship of master and servant had come to an end and he was no longer governed by the provisions of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant further contends that he had fallen ill and was treated in a Government Hospital, where he was advised complete rest, and accordingly proceeded on medical leave supported by a medical certificate. According to the applicant, after being declared medically fit, he reported for duty but was not permitted to join and was ultimately required to submit his joining in the receipt section. It is further stated that in the year 2022, the respondents appointed Shri Vineet Mishra, EO, RO, Kanpur as the Presenting Officer and Shri Anoop Katiyar, RPFC-II as the Inquiry Officer. However, despite the lapse of considerable time, the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalized. The grievance of the applicant is that on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, his post-retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondents. The applicant further states that he submitted a representation dated 23.02.2024 followed by a reminder dated 20.09.2024 for release of his post-retiral benefits, but no action was taken thereon and neither any reply was furnished nor the remaining post-retiral benefits were released. Hence, being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that a disciplinary enquiry was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement and, consequently, his Vigilance Clearance Certificate was not clear. It is contended that in such circumstances, the retiral dues were regulated in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents submit that the Staff Provident Fund amounting to Rs.48,94,045/- was paid to the applicant on 30.11.2021 and provisional pension of Rs.51,500/- per month has been disbursed to him regularly from the first month of his retirement. It is further submitted that since the charge memorandum was issued in respect of a minor penalty and considering the livelihood concerns of the applicant, Central Administrative Tribunal^{interim gratuity, interim commutation and leave encashment were also} disbursed after withholding certain amounts in accordance with the applicable rules. According to the respondents, the applicant's disciplinary proceedings could validly continue even after his superannuation. It is submitted that, in the case of retired employees of the EPFO, the Chairman, Central Board of Trustees is the competent authority to exercise the relevant powers and the disciplinary authority existing prior to retirement is required to submit its report to the Chairman, Central Board of Trustees for a final decision in the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents further submit that the charge memorandum dated 25.11.2021 was served upon the applicant prior to his retirement and was preceded by several advisory notes, office notes, explanation letters and memoranda issued between September and October, 2021 regarding alleged lack of devotion to duty, casual approach, non-performance, non-reporting and disobedience of orders. It is contended that the said misconduct culminated in the issuance of the charge memorandum. The respondents have further relied upon Rule 9(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Rule 8(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 to contend that pension or gratuity may be withheld in the event a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in departmental or judicial proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that after conclusion of the enquiry and submission of the relevant report to the competent authority, a further decision regarding the remaining retiral dues of the applicant would be taken in accordance with the order/direction of the competent authority. The respondents have also denied that there has been any inordinate delay causing pecuniary loss to the applicant and have contended that most of the admissible retiral dues have already been paid to the applicant and the remaining matter is subject to the outcome of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was initially appointed as a Clerk on 10.10.1983 and, after serving the respondents’ organization for several decades, retired from the post of Section Supervisor on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2021. Learned counsel submits that just five days before his retirement, the respondents served upon him a charge memorandum dated 25.11.2021 and, on account of the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, have withheld his remaining post-retiral benefits. It is further submitted that although the applicant submitted his pension papers on the date of retirement and also furnished his reply to the charge memorandum on 02.12.2021, the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalized even after considerable lapse of time. Learned counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed in the year 2022, but despite the passage of considerable time thereafter, no final decision has been taken in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant had also submitted a representation dated 23.02.2024 followed by a reminder dated 20.09.2024 for release of his post-retiral benefits, but the respondents neither decided the same nor released the remaining admissible dues. Learned counsel further submits that the continued withholding of the applicant's post-retiral benefits solely on account of prolonged pendency of the disciplinary proceedings is arbitrary and illegal. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents are liable to be directed to release the remaining post-retiral benefits of the applicant along with appropriate interest.

Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant was served with the charge memorandum dated 25.11.2021 prior to his retirement and a disciplinary enquiry was pending against him on the date of his superannuation. Learned counsel submits that on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant's Vigilance Clearance Certificate was not clear and, therefore, the retiral benefits were required to be regulated in accordance with the applicable rules. It is submitted that the Staff Provident Fund amounting to Rs.48,94,045/- was paid to the applicant on the date of his retirement and provisional pension of Rs.51,500/- per month has been regularly disbursed from the first month after his retirement. Learned counsel further submits that, despite pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents also released interim gratuity, interim commutation and leave encashment after withholding the permissible amount under the rules. It is contended that the disciplinary Central Administrative Tribunal^{proceedings do not automatically come to an end merely because the} applicant has retired and that the competent authority is entitled to take a decision in respect of the pensionary benefits after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the enquiry is still pending and, upon its conclusion, further action regarding the remaining retiral benefits of the applicant shall be taken in accordance with the decision of the competent authority and the applicable rules. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents have acted in accordance with the rules and no case for grant of the relief claimed in the OA is made out.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant portion of the CCS Pension Rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The same is as under:-

The admitted facts reveal that the charge memorandum dated 25.11.2021 was issued to the applicant prior to his retirement on 30.11.2021 and the disciplinary proceedings were thereafter continued. However, the record further shows that the charge memorandum pertains to proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, i.e. minor penalty proceedings. The relevant provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 specifically provide that departmental proceedings instituted under Rule 16 while the Government servant was in service and continued after retirement shall have no effect on the pension and gratuity of the pensioner. In the present case, despite the applicant having retired on 30.11.2021 and considerable time having elapsed thereafter, the respondents have continued to withhold the remaining post-retiral benefits on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. The factual background regarding the applicant's retirement, pendency of proceedings and withholding of the remaining retiral dues is borne out from the record.

In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, I am of the considered opinion that pendency of the minor penalty proceedings cannot be made a ground for withholding the pension and gratuity payable to the applicant after his retirement. The respondents cannot deprive the applicant of his lawful post-retiral benefits indefinitely merely on account of pendency of such proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings, if otherwise permissible in law, may continue and be concluded in accordance with the applicable rules; however, the same shall have no adverse effect upon the pension and gratuity of the applicant in terms of Rule 8(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all the remaining admissible post-retiral benefits of the applicant, including the withheld amount of gratuity and other consequential dues, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with rules. The respondents shall also finalize the pending disciplinary proceedings, if the same are still pending, expeditiously and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

All associated M.As also stand disposed of.