Arun Jadhav vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Applicant is a former Superintending Engineer under Lakshadweep service, who had commenced service as an Assistant Engineer on 25.01.1996. He retired as a Superintending Engineer on 31.07.2024. It has come out that he was granted promotion as Superintending Engineer by virtue of Annexure A-9 order of this Tribunal dated 13.11.2020 which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and thereafter, was granted promotion only on initiating Contempt of Court proceedings. To make a long story short, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer by Annexure A-1 order dated 17.01.2024 and retired as such on superannuation on 31.07.2024.

The present grievance of the applicant is that, on account of a show cause notice issued against him for the alleged cause of action that had occurred during the period from 26.10.2010 to 30.03.2013, pensionary benefits are denied to him. He has submitted that he gave reply to the notice after collecting necessary documents from the department, but not satisfied by that reply, the Administrator, the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the recommendations made by the Director, Vigilance, Annexure R2(c) order was passed by the Administrator on 29.01.2019 directing to initiate departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. That order was communicated to the Superintending Engineer, Lakshadweep Public Works Department, the Nodal Department by Annexure R-2(a) communication dated 31.01.2019. Thereafter, nothing had happened; he was not served with any Memo of Charges. Thus disciplinary proceedings was not started since Annexures R2(a) and R2(c) remained on the papers.

Now the applicant submits that even though he had retired from service on 31.07.2024, he has been granted only provisional pension. Other retiral benefits have not been granted and thus, has approached the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to sanction/disburse full pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, commuted value of pension, encashment of value of earned leave and other terminal benefits forthwith and also interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The respondents filed a reply statement stating that certain serious acts of misconduct were noticed on the part of the applicant in the matter of issuance of repeated work orders which violated the CPWD Manual 2010 and GFR 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149. Ultimately, the Administrator directed to initiate action against him. They have prayed for dismissing the O.A.

The applicant filed a rejoinder.

Today, I heard the learned counsel on both sides in detail.

It is true that the applicant had been working under the Lakshadweep Administration with effect from 25.01.1996 and retired as Superintending Engineer on 31.07.2024. After retirement, he was granted provisional pension only and the request for grant of full pension and other retiral benefits was denied owing to the contemplation of a disciplinary action as evidenced by Annexure A2/R2(b) showcause notice. The applicant has already submitted his explanation. After the submission of the reply, even though action was ordered to be taken against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules, that matter did not progress further.

In this connection, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on Rule 8 2(c) (i) & (ii) of the CCS CCA (Pension) Rules, 2021, which read thus:

Referring to the explanation to Rule 8(8), it is submitted that unless a charge is framed in a disciplinary proceeding, such a proceeding cannot be deemed to have been instituted against the retired government servant.

Here, from records, it must be admitted by the respondents that no disciplinary proceedings has been initiated against him. As quoted supra, the cause of action for such disciplinary proceedings had started during the period 2010-2013. From Rule 8(2) (c) (i) & (ii), it is clear that Presidential sanction has not been sought or obtained for initiation of proceedings against him after retirement. There is also a statutory injunction against initiating such proceedings after a lapse of four years from the date of occurrence of the cause of action.

Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 04.12.2019 in OP(CAT) 289/2019 in D.Mohammed Manikfan v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others.

The statutory provisions are very clear. Now, no disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings is pending against the applicant. Chances of initiation of such proceedings are foreclosed. Hence, there is no impediment in releasing all the retirement benefits to the applicant. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release entire retiral benefits to the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, beyond which it will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.

The Original Application is allowed as above. No costs.