AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:
In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-
"i)An Order do issue directing the respondents to grant interest for delayed payment of Gratuity and Leave Encashment Dues @ 8% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of release since the applicant was exonerated from the charges leveled against him."
The facts of the case in the nutshell is that the applicant worked as SPM, Tangra Post Office, Kolkata and retired from service w.e.f. 30.09.2021. While he was discharging his duties as Postmaster, he was proceeded with under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the allegation that during the period from 06.06.2017 to 14.12.2020, he failed to pay attention to the excess cash balances that were being held by the Sinthee Post Office. It was alleged that on 11.09.2018, 14.09.2018, 29.11.2018, 01.06.2019 and 13.07.2019 the SPM, Sinthee Post Office in connivance with Sri Subhasis Basu had retained excess cash over and above the maximum amount that may be retained by the Sinthee PO (i.e. existing liabilities plus minimum cash balance of Rs. 3,50,000/- fixed for Sinthee Post Office amounting to Rs. 11,78,381/- in total. Shri Basu had neither objected to retention of excess cash nor took any action for removing the same on those days when no cash was actually required by Sinthee Post Office to meet their liabilities. Moreover on 11.09.2018, 14.09.2018, 29.11.2018, 01.03.2019, 01.06.2019, 06.06.2019, 11.06.2019, 28.06.2019, 06.07.2019 and 13.07.2019 the SPM Sinthee PO in connivance with Sri Subhasis Basu, Postmaster, Cossipore, HO had requisitioned huge amount of cash showing fake liabilities in the cash requisition form and subsequently Sri Basu issued pay orders on 12.09.2018, 15.09.2018, 30.11.2018, 04.03.2019, 03.06.2019, 07.06.2019, 12.06.2019, 29.06.2019, 08.07.2019 and 15.07.2019 based on just cash requisitions received from Sinthee PO only and without examining the balance in hand by the SPM, Sinthee PO and thereby remitted a huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 81,99,000/-. As a result of which SPM, Sinthee PO got an opportunity to retain excess cash amounting to Rs. 79,23,711.46 in hand on those days. Therefore, since no action has been taken for removing of such excess cash from Sinthee Post Office, not raising any objection citing irregularities in respect of retention of excess cash as well as supplying of huge fund to Sinthee PO without examining the balance in hand by the SPM as shown in the Daily Account of the office, the applicant had facilitated the SPM, Sinthee PO for receiving huge amounts of cash , which in turn helped the delinquent Postmaster of Sinthee PO to misappropriate Govt. money to the tune of Rs. 27,06,000/-. Thus, the applicant while functioning as Postmaster, Cossipore Head Post office for the period from 06.06.2017 to 14.12.2020 had violated Rule 58(4), 10(1), 10(4) of Postal Manual Vol. VI Part – III and have acted in contravention to Rule 3(I)(i), 3(I)(ii), 3(I)(iii), 3(I)(xviii) and 3(I)(xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, during the period 06.06.2017 to 14.12.2020 he had failed to pay attention to the excess cash balances that were being held by Sinthee Post Office. The SPM, Sinthee Post office in connivance with the applicant had retained excess amount of cash over and above the maximum amount that may be retained amounting to Rs. 11,78,381.77 in total. The applicant neither objected on retention of excess cash nor has he taken any action for removing the same on those days when no cash was actually required by the Sinthee Post Office. Subsequently, the applicant retired from service and proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules was initiated against him. The enquiry commenced and the applicant duly participated in the enquiry proceedings and after completion of enquiry, Enquiry Report was submitted wherein the Enquiry Officer came to the finding that the charges against the applicant stood proved. The applicant was also given an opportunity to make a representation against the Enquiry Report. He made a representation against the Enquiry Report on 18.08.2022 but the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the same and pass any order and the proceeding were not finalized and he went on receiving provisional pension. The applicant was also not paid leave salary and he was intimated vide Order dated 10.05.2022 that a major penalty disciplinary case is pending against him. In the meanwhile, the applicant filed O.A. No. 678 of 2023 before this Tribunal claiming quashing of Charge Memo dated 07.09.2021 and release of Leave Salary and this Tribunal vide Order dated 29.05.2023 directed the Disciplinary Authority to consider his representation with a further direction to complete the pending disciplinary proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order and pass appropriate final Order. Since the authorities failed to complete the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time frame and no extension of time was sought for passing the Order, the Order, if any, passed by the Disciplinary Authority stood honest in the eye of law. Accordingly, another O.A. No. 1292 of 2023 was filed praying for release of Leave Salary and DCRG in his favour along with interest and this Tribunal after hearing the parties disposed of the O.A. on 21.01.2025 with a direction upon the respondents to release retirement benefits within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order. Further, it was made clear that no interest on DCRG and Leave Encashment dues would be payable as they were withheld in pursuance of the provisions contained in CCS (Leave) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules and are being released by this specific Order of the Court. However, vide Order dated 25.04.2025 the applicant was informed that he has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him. Subsequently thereafter, the applicant received Leave Salary amounting to Rs. 8,90,800/- on 21.05.2025 and DCRG amounting to Rs. 14,69,820/- on 02.07.2025. The applicant, therefore, submits that since the charges were not proved, the applicant is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of DCRG and Leave Encashment. However, it was made clear that no interest on DCRG and Leave Encashment dues will be payable as they were withheld in pursuance to the provisions contained in CCS (Leave) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules and are being released by this specific Order of the Court. The applicant claims that since the applicant has been exonerated of the charges, the respondents cannot deny interest on the delayed payment of DCRG and leave encashment and the respondents are duty bound to pay him interest on the amount of DCRG and Leave Encashment.
The respondents have filed their reply wherein they have contended that while the applicant was discharging duties as Postmaster, Cossipore Head Post Office during the period from 06.06.2017 to 14.12.2020 he was implicated for contributory negligence on his part and a disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against him on 07.09.2021, which consequent upon his retirement was converted to Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Since the respondents failed to act as per direction of this Tribunal vide Order dated 29.05.2025 and the applicant had again filed an O.A. No. 1292 of 2023 for release of pensionary benefits wherein it was directed to release his retirement benefits within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order, the respondent authorities had released his leave salary, Gratuity and along with it, pension was also credited to his account along with Commuted Value of Pension and CGEGIS money. However, in the instant O.A. the applicant has claimed interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. They have also claimed that in the Order dated 21.01.2025, this Tribunal had clearly indicated that no interest on DCRG and Leave Encashment will be payable to the applicant. Since the respondents have complied with the Order of this Tribunal in true letter and spirit, therefore, they have claimed that the O.A. be dismissed in limine.
The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. On 14.07.2026 none had appeared for the respondents, even today also there was no representation on behalf of the official respondents and since the pleadings are complete, hence I invoke Rule 16(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and proceed to pass Orders.
A bare perusal of Order dated 21.01.2025 passed in O.A. No. 350/01292/2023 it is found that this Tribunal has clearly observed in Para 5.6 as under:-
“ xxxxx
5.6.We, however, make it clear that no interest on the DCRG and Leave Encashment dues will be payable as they were withheld in pursuance of the provisions contained in CCS (Leave) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules and are being released by this specific order of the Court.”
Therefore, due to subsequent exoneration, now, the applicant cannot ask for the same without showing any provision of payment interest on withheld DCRG and Leave Encashment dues. As this Tribunal has already considered the issue of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits sitting in a Division Bench in an earlier round of litigation, therefore, on the ground of subsequent exoneration, I being one of the Member of the said judgment cannot overrule the same as our earlier Order has not been challenged by either of the parties before any higher forum. Therefore, the issue involved in this case according to me is barred by res-judicata.
Further, the judgment cited by the applicant in Civil appeal No. 7113 of 2014 in the matter of D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Uttar Haryana Bill Vitran Nigam dated 01.08.2014 in para 03 it has clearly been observed as under:-
“ xxxxxx
3.The appellant was appointed to the post of Line Superintendent on 30.09.1968 with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In the year 1990, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his service, the applicant remained in charge of number of transformers after getting issued them from the stores and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the stores. While depositing the damaged transformers in the stores, some shortage in transformers oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transfer were erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and later on it was held that for the shortages and breakages there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment...”
Whereas in the instant case, against the applicant there was a disciplinary proceeding pending under CCS (CCA) Rules before his superannuation and on that ground itself his entire pensionary benefits were withheld. However, this Court while directing the respondent authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated period of time has observed that no interest on the DCRG and Leave Encashment dues will be payable as they were withheld in pursuance of the provisions contained in CCS (Leave) Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules and are being released by this specific order of the Court and the pensionary benefits have been released pursuant to directions of this Tribunal in that Order. Therefore, the judgment placed by the applicant is quite distinguishable and not applicable in the instant case.
In view of the above, the O.A. being devoid of merits is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to costs.