AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. G.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Pradep Kumar No. 2, learned counsel for contesting respondent No. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 3rd June, 2005 passed by Patna Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "Tribunal") in O.A. No. 805 of 2004.
Respondent No. 2 after his superannuation with effect from 30th June, 2004 made an application before the authorities for payment of his retrial dues, which were withheld on account of show-cause notice issued to him vide memo dated 11.6.2004.
On the basis of request made by respondent No. 2 the authority sanctioned the amount of Death-cum-Retiral Gratuity (hereinafter to be referred to as "DCRG") to the tune of rupees three lacs fifty thousand vide order dated 25.6.2004. The applicant was also sanctioned pension of Rs. 10084/ - payable with effect from 1.7.2004.
The authorities further sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,74,765/- as commutation of his pension. However, the applicant was asked to explain vide letter dated 11.6.2004 as to why his retrial dues may not be withheld on account of financial irregularities to the tune of Rs. 58,168/-. A detailed reply to the show-cause notice was furnished by this respondent on 24.6.2004, but the same remained pending and the prayer of respondent No. 2 was not finalised. Ultimately, the original application aforesaid was filed before the Tribunal.
The learned Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case held that in absence of any departmental proceeding till date of issuance of show-cause notice retrial dues could not have been withheld. The learned Tribunal further noticed that according to the written statement of the Department, the proceeding was also under contemplation and it had not taken any final shape nor any inquiry had commenced, and, therefore, withholding of retrial dues was wholly without jurisdiction. However, an observation was also made by the Tribunal that the amount determined by the authorities towards financial irregularities to the tune of Rs. 58158/-may be withheld and rest of the retrial dues be paid to the applicant forthwith alongwith the permissible interest.
Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that since a show-cause notice was issued, the matter could not have been finally disposed of by the Tribunal in view of Section 19(4) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Learned counsel further submitted that since the proceeding was under contemplation the same amounted to a proceeding, and, therefore, the learned Tribunal wholly erred in issuing the direction for releasing of the retrial dues.
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the contrary, submitted that even charges were not framed at the time of retirement against the claimant nor even during pendency of the original application before the Tribunal, and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly justified.
It is not in dispute that no departmental proceeding had commenced either before retirement of the claimant nor during the pendency of the original application filed before the Tribunal. Even till the date of disposal of the original application, no such proceeding was pending, as charges were not served upon the claimant.
The retrial dues, in this view of the matter, could not have been withheld by the authorities and the whole exercise done by them is arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.
For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.