>
ORDER(ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant retired as Deputy Assistant Director General. In the year 2006, a charge memo was issued to him on 17.07.2006, making certain allegations. He submitted an application denying the allegations. Not satisfied with that, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) appointed an Inquiry Officer (IO). The latter submitted report on 27.02.2018, holding that the charge framed against the applicant, is not proved. The matter was referred to CVC, as required under the prescribed procedure and they, in turn, advised the closure of proceedings. Ultimately, through an order dated 02.05.2019, the DA closed the proceedings.
2. The applicant retired from service on 31.07.2010, on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that when the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant, he was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director General and that sealed cover procedure was adopted in his case. It is also stated that, steps were taken for promotion to the post of Deputy Director General.
3. After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against him, through order dated 02.05.2019, the applicant submitted a
2
representation dated 09.05.2019 with multiple prayers. He requested that the sealed cover be opened and the benefit of corresponding promotions be extended to him. It was also stated that the provisional pension was sanctioned in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the gratuity was withheld and once the disciplinary proceedings ended in his favour, the same needs to be released, in accordance with law. Since there is no response to his representation, the applicant filed this OA, almost with the same prayers as made in the representation dated 09.05.2019.
4. The OA was admitted and notice was issued on 31.05.2019 so that the view point of the respondents can be ascertained and disposal can be given to the OA. However, there is virtually no response from the department.
5. We heard Sh. D.S. Mahendru, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. Sandeep Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sh. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
6. The promotion of the applicant was withheld on account of the pendency of the criminal case and disciplinary proceedings. Since, he retired at a time when those proceedings were very much pending, provisional pension was sanctioned and gratuity was withheld. Once, the applicant is acquitted in criminal case and disciplinary proceedings are dropped, the respondents need to restore
3
him the benefits, which were denied to him on that account. The representation cannot be kept pending indefinitely.
7. We, accordingly, dispose of the OA with a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2, to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 09.05.2019, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Member (A) Chairman
/ns/
4