Vishambhar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the review applicant, and Shri Amitabh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the review respondents.

The present Review Application has been filed by the original applicant under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking review of the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in OA No. 518/2020. The main ground taken in the Review Application is that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant were neither referred to nor discussed while deciding the Original Application. It is further contended that had case laws relied upon by the applicant been considered, the result of the Original Application would have been different. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has annexed the following judgments:

The original respondents have filed their objections to the Review Application, denying the grounds taken therein. They have contended that, since a criminal case was pending against the applicant, the Original Application was rightly decided. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicant do not warrant any change in the view taken by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Review Application.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record, including the grounds taken in the Review Application, the objections filed by the respondents and the reply thereto.

Although several grounds have been raised in the Review Application, the main question for consideration is whether the judgments relied upon by the applicant, which were not considered while deciding the Original Application, have any bearing on the outcome of the case. Since the said judgments were neither referred to nor discussed in the order under review, it is necessary to examine their relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case before deciding the Review Application.

In Deba Prasad Patnaik (supra), the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the authorities concerned to release the admissible retiral benefits. The main consideration was that cognizance of the criminal case had not been taken by the learned Special Judge, CBI, before the employee attained the age of superannuation.

In. M.B. Motwani (Dead) through LRs and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a case in which the employee had retired on 31.07.1991, whereas the charge-sheet was filed on 07.12.1991. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the release of the retiral benefits in accordance with its findings.

In Deo Narain Shukla (supra), this Tribunal allowed the Original Application after considering that the period of reduction in pay imposed in the disciplinary proceedings had come to an end and that no criminal case was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 14780/2024 vide judgment dated 27.09.2024.

In Shanti Devi and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court considered the question of release of retiral benefits under the applicable State Rules. The appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the order of the learned Single Judge directing the release of the retiral dues.

In Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue relating to the taking of cognizance by the competent criminal court and set aside the order of cognizance in the facts and circumstances of that case.

It is clarified that this Tribunal is not exercising the jurisdiction of a criminal court to determine the legality or validity of the cognizance taken by the competent criminal court. However, the existence and legal status of the criminal proceedings, insofar as they affect the applicant’s entitlement to retiral benefits, are matters that may be examined by this Tribunal in accordance with the applicable service rules. A perusal of the order under review shows that the closure report submitted by the CBI and the protest petition filed against it were relevant to the consideration of the applicant’s claim. It was observed that upon acceptance of the protest petition against the closure report, the matter was treated as a complaint. The legal effect of the order passed by the competent criminal court, including whether cognizance had been taken before the applicant’s retirement or not, therefore requires consideration in the light of the applicable law.

The crucial question is whether any disciplinary proceeding or criminal proceeding, as contemplated under the applicable service rules, was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement or not. This question has a direct bearing on the respondents’ justification for withholding the applicant’s retiral benefits. The judgments referred to above, particularly those concerning the status of proceedings on the date of retirement, are relevant to this issue. If, on examination of the record and the applicable service rules, it is found that no such proceeding was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement, the conclusion reached in the order under review may require reconsideration. This material aspect, which may affect the outcome of the Original Application, has not been adequately considered in the order dated 18.09.2025. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration in accordance with law.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the omission to examine the aforesaid material aspect, in the light of the judgments relied upon by the applicant, warrants reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in OA No. 518/2020 is recalled. The Original Application is restored to its original number for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after taking into account the relevant judgments.

The Review Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Let OA No. 518/2020 be listed on 19.11.2026 for further hearing.