O R D E R
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue an order or direction directing the respondents to sanction provisional pension on the basis of 7thPay Commission and also issue arrear of pension with interest to the applicant.
(ii) to issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to provide full salary for the suspension period and GPF, Gratuity, Leave encashment and other terminal benefits and arrear of above mentioned funds with interest to the applicant.
(iii) To issue an order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of original application in favour of the applicant".
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicant was appointed as a Peon in the respondents' department on 16.12.1979. His services were confirmed vide order dated
1
2
16.12.1997. An FIR was lodged against the applicant under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant was arrested and was granted bail on 24.03.2017. It is further pleaded that the applicant was placed under suspension after his arrest and superannuated on 31.12.2019. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 704 of 2020, which was decided on 03.12.2020 with a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation dated 15.02.2020. It is next pleaded that, after his release on bail and superannuation, the applicant submitted a representation for release of his retiral dues and payment of salary for the suspension period. However, no order was passed on his representation. The applicant has contended that no departmental proceeding was initiated against him and, therefore, the respondents ought to have released his retiral dues. It is further contended that the mere pendency of a criminal case, in which the applicant has not been convicted, cannot be a ground for withholding of his retiral dues. It is also stated that only provisional pension has been sanctioned in his favour. Accordingly, the applicant has prayed for allowing the Original Application and directing the respondents to release his entire retiral dues.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the applicant's claim for release of his retiral benefits. It has been stated that provisional pension has been sanctioned in his favour. Since a criminal case is pending before the CBI Court, Lucknow, after sanction for prosecution was granted, his GPF, gratuity and other retiral dues have not been released as per the applicable rules. It is further stated that the subsistence allowance for the suspension period has been paid to the applicant. According to the respondents, the retiral dues cannot be released until the criminal case is decided.
4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant, denying the statements made in the counter affidavit. It has specifically been stated that one Anil Kumar Mandol, who was also a co-accused in the same case, was arrested and subsequently released on bail. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked and he was permitted to join duty. In support of
3
this contention, the applicant has annexed the order passed in respect of the said co-accused.
5. The respondents have filed a supplementary counter affidavit, again refuting the statements made in the rejoinder affidavit. They have annexed the order granting sanction for the prosecution of the applicant. It is further stated that the role attributed to the applicant in the criminal case is more serious than that of the co-accused Anil Kumar Mandol. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim identical treatment.
6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the applicant. Accordingly, this Tribunal proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of the available record after hearing learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, Advocate, in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that a criminal case relating to alleged embezzlement is pending before the competent court against the applicant and other co-accused. Provisional pension has already been sanctioned in favour of the applicant. However, his other retiral dues have not been released because of the pendency of the criminal case. It was further argued that the fact that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the applicant does not entitle him to release of the retiral dues or finalisation of his final pension when the criminal case is still pending.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
9. It is admitted fact that no departmental proceeding was pending against the applicant on the date of his retirement. The applicant was arrested in connection with the FIR referred to above and was subsequently placed under suspension. He was granted bail on 24.03.2017. Provisional pension has been sanctioned in his favour and is being paid regularly. The subsistence allowance for the suspension period has also been paid.
4
10. Now the question for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to the release of his remaining retiral dues while the criminal case is pending against him.
11. To examine this issue, I have considered the relevant provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. A criminal case is pending against the applicant and other co-accused before the competent CBI Court. The allegations relate to fraudulent payments amounting to Rs. 21,85,87,070/-. In view of the applicable rules and the facts of the case, I find no illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in withholding the remaining retiral dues at this stage. Therefore, the Original Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. However, if the applicant is acquitted in the criminal case, he shall be at liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority for the release of his remaining retiral dues. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Misc. Applications are also disposed of.
(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)
Member (J)
Manish