Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Anr vs D.K. Bose on 8 August, 2019
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 08.08.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 8630/2019
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Central
Government Standing Counsel.
Versus
D.K. BOSE
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashim Shidla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 35671/2019 & 35672/2019.
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 8630/2019 & CM No. 35670/2019
1. Issue notice. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice. We have
heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the record, and we
proceed to dispose of the petition at this stage itself.
2. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition with the prayer
to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside
the impugned order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1679/2016.
3. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent retired from
the post of Superintendent in the Central Excise Department on
30.06.2012 and just 8 days before his retirement, he was served with the
Charge Sheet dated 22.06.2012. Following the Charge Sheet, he was
subjected to disciplinary enquiry proceedings ultimately culminating into
his exoneration vide order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the
Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-I, New Delhi.
4. The retiral benefits had been paid belatedly to the respondent
without any interest, so he preferred O.A. No. 1679/2016 before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench which was allowed by
the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 09.05.2018.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the Principal
Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners have preferred
the present writ petition.
6. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. counsels and given our
due consideration to the matter.
7. It has been mainly argued by the counsel for the petitioners that
because of issuance of charge sheet dated 22.06.2012, before retirement
of the respondent on 30.06.2012, disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against him in which he was exonerated vide order dated
28.01.2015 as a result of which his retiral benefits were released
belatedly, so the petitioners cannot be burdened with interest for the
period spent in the inquiry proceedings.
8. On the other hand, it is urged by the counsel for the respondent
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.05.2018. It is
further urged by him that the charge sheet dated 22.06.2012 had been
malafidely issued against the respondent just 8 days before his retirement
on 30.06.2012 in which ultimately the respondent was exonerated,
therefore, the respondent is entitled to interest on the belated release of
various components of his retiral benefits.
9. The relevant extracts of the impugned order dated 09.05.2018 are
as follows :
"3. The Central Government has also issued OM
No. 38/64/98-P&PW(F) dated 05.10.1999 wherein it is
provided for payment of interest on the delayed payment of
retiral benefits.
4. In the conspectus, I am of the view that the
applicant is entitled for receiving interest at reasonable
rate. I also take into consideration that in the normal
course, it would have taken a maximum period of three
months to crystallize various retiral claims of the applicant.
Hence, I hold that the applicant is entitled for receiving
interest for any delay that has occurred beyond three
months of his retirement.
5. Accordingly, I allow this OA in the following
terms:-
Respondents are directed to pay interest @ 8%
on the delayed release of various components of retiral
benefits beyond a period of three months from the date of
his retirement, i.e. w.e.f. 01.10.2012. This shall be done
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
10. In the instant case, the respondent was to superannuate on
30.06.2012 but he was served with a charge sheet on 22.06.2012 just 8
days before his superannuation.
11. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Enquiry Officer vide
enquiry report dated 30.09.2013 returned the finding that charges leveled
in the charge sheet against the respondent stand disproved and the matter
was under the process of finalization. But no finalization of the
proceedings was done. So the respondent approached the Tribunal by
filing OA No. 3579/2012, which was disposed of vide order dated
28.02.2014, vide which the Tribunal directed the petitioners to finalize
the departmental proceedings and pass appropriate orders at the earliest.
But even after the passage of almost ten months from the date of the
aforesaid order dated 28.02.2014, the petitioners did not finalize the
disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent. The
respondent then approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C)
No. 7587/2014. The High Court vide its order dated November 05,
2014 directed the petitioners to pass appropriate orders on the basis of
the Inquiry report submitted to the Disciplinary Authority within four
weeks from the date of the order. Only then on 28.01.2015, i.e. after
more than 2 and a half months from the passing of the order dated
November, 05, 2014 by the High Court, the respondent was exonerated
of all the charges levelled in the charge sheet as a result of which his
retiral benefits were released belatedly.
12. The above conduct of the petitioners appears to be most casual
and is a classic case of victimization. By such a callous and
irresponsible conduct of the petitioners, the respondent's retiral benefits
were released belatedly. Not only this, he had to undergo all the rigors
of the enquiry which ultimately cluminated into his exoneration. The
respondent had to approach the Tribunal and High Court seeking
finalization of his case which resulted not only in wastage of his time
and money, rather it had caused undue harassment to a retired person.
13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. The petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
AUGUST 8, 2019
Sumant
