Union of India vs C.P. Pandey

Calling in question tenability of an order dated 26th February, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 49/2013, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India.

Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent, we find that the respondent Shri C.P. Pandey was working in the postal department and while working as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ujjain Division in the year 2010 he is said to have committed certain irregularities in the matter of appointment of various group B Post i.e. Gramin Dak Sevak . Be that as it may be proceedings were to be initiated against him but in the meanwhile he sought voluntary retirement and he was directed to retire on 24/07/2012. when his retiral claims were not being paid he initiated proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Union of India came out with a justification to say that as departmental proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 is apprehended against the petitioner and therefore, his pensionary benefits are being withheld as the matter was taken up for institution of departmental proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with the sanction of the President of India. The tribunal found that no departmental proceedings were initiated, no charge-sheet was issued when the employee was in service and now the departmental proceedings can be initiated only after approval of the President of India, no approval has been obtained, therefore, the petition has been allowed by the tribunal and pensionary benefits are directed to be settled with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 25/01/2013 till payment. Contending that the process for obtaining permission from the President of India is still going and until and unless final decision is not taken full pension cannot be granted only provisional pension can be fixed, this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal has been filed by the department.

Shri Vijay Tripathi, refuted the aforesaid argued that until and unless the departmental proceedings are initiated after due approval of the President of India as contemplated under Rule 9 of Pension Rules, petitioners have no right to withhold the pension of the respondent employee.

Having considered the rival contention we find no error in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered that provision of Rule 14(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 and the provision of Rule 9 and it is found that until and unless the departmental inquiry is initiated after approval of the Hon''ble President of India no pension can be withheld, this is the correct position in law and the view taken by the tribunal is correct, we see no error in the same. Once an employee is retired from service and if at the time of retirement no departmental inquiry was pending or initiated, the retired employee is entitled to settlement of all his pensionary claims after retirement. The departmental proceedings can be initiated against him only after due approval from the President of India and if the approval is granted the departmental inquiry can be initiated and thereafter any such punishment can be imposed as contemplated under the statutory provision i.e. for withdrawal or reduction of pension. However, till a decision is not taken by the President of India, there is no authority under law, or statutory provision which contemplates withholding of pension or granting provisional pension. As all these aspect of the matter was taken into consideration by the Tribunal and a finding based on the legal principle has been given, we see no error in the same, if ultimately the President of India gives approval to proceed and take departmental action then the department is free to take a decision as may be permissible under the law. The order passed by the tribunal does not prevent the department from doing so, that being so the order passed by the tribunal does not warrant any further consideration, petition is dismissed.

The period granted for payment of pensionary claims of the petitioner is extended by further 45 days from today with the interest as ordered by the Tribunal.

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.