AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The court fails to appreciate as to why the
present writ application was filed in the very first place
assailing the order dated 27.05.2014 passed in O.A. No.
706/2011 by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as the "Tribunal"), Patna Bench, Patna.
The private respondent was the applicant
before the Tribunal for payment of interest on withheld
DCRG amount of Rs. 3,18,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs
Eighteen Thousand only) with effect from 30.11.2004 till
the date of his actual payment because he dubbed the
action of the petitioners to be bad in law.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna
Bench, Patna went into various submissions made on
behalf of the parties as well as the circumstances under
which gratuity or pension could be withheld against the
government servant.
No doubt a proceeding was initiated for
major punishment against the private respondent but no
major punishment as such came to be awarded. The
punishment of withholding of 5% pension for a period of
five years was passed but the payment of gratuity was
allowed and withholding it was not the punishment in
question. It was in this background that the Tribunal had
this to say in paragraph 14: -
From the perusal of above Rule, it emerges that sub-para (i), (ii), (iii)(a) and (iv) deals with penalties relating to minor penalties, whereas in the instant case the applicant was chargesheeted for major penalty. Thus, these rules are not applicable
in the case of the applicant. Moreover, Rule-9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 has specifically stipulated the right of the President to withheld or withdraw the pension if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement which means pension or gratuity can be withheld or withdrawn either in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period after conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the principles laid down in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. is squarely applicable in the instant case and respondents have no authority to withheld the DCRG as Hon''ble Supreme Court relying on the case of D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 and after discussing Rule 43(b) of the Bihar (Pension) Rules, which is akin to Rule-9 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 has held that in the absence of any provision in the Rules, no DCRG can be withheld."
After having heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent, we
do not find any infirmity in the rationale and reasoning
provided by the Tribunal in ordering payment of interest
at the rate of 8% on the DCRG amount from the date it
was withheld i.e. 30.11.2004 till the actual date of
payment made in favour of the private respondent.
Since DCRG does carry a statutory interest
and there is obligation created to pay statutory interest
upon the employer under various rules and legislations,
the direction of the Tribunal to pay interest at the rate of
8% cannot be said to be a irrational order in the
background that the respondent authority did not decide
to withhold his DCRG as a measure of punishment but
only deferred it during pendency of the departmental
enquiry.
The writ application has not merit. It is
dismissed.