Madras High Court
Union Of India vs S.X. Jayaraj on 22 November, 2023
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.Nos. 228 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
W.P.No. 228 of 2020
Union of India
Represented by the Under Secretary to
The Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Office of the Chief Excise and Customs,
6th Floor, C-Wing, HUDCO Vishala Building,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066. ..Petitioner
Vs
1. S.X. Jayaraj
2.The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai-600104.
Prayer : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the
2nd respondent in its final order made in O.A.No.1410 of 2018 dated
14.03.2019 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
For Petitioners : Mrs. R.Hemalatha
For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Venkatesh - R1
R2- Tribunal
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos. 228 of 2020
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order passed by the tribunal in 1st respondent in
O.A.No. 1098 of 2011 and O.A.No. 1466 of 2011, dated 26.08.2014, the
present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-department has submitted
that a criminal case was registered against the 1st respondent in C.C.No.
11/2008 before the II Addl. District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai under
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the
charges of possession of disproportionate assets and directed to undergo 3
years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- or in default to
undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-department has submitted
that challenging the said conviction, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal
in Crl.Appl (MD).No. 140/2015 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, Madurai. The Madurai Bench, by order dated 10.06.2015 in M.P.No.
1 of 2015 suspended the sentence of imprisonment and enlarged the 1st
respondent on bail on condition that he shall report on the first working day
of every month before the trial Court pending disposal of the above appeal.
Subsequently, the petitioner herein was issued with a show cause notice
dated 30.06.2017 under Section 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 informing
the 1st respondent as to why the penalty of withholding of full monthly
pension otherwise admissible and withholding of gratuity on permanent
basis upon the 1st respondent on the gravity of misconduct. The said penalty
was also confirmed by the disciplinary authority.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-department has submitted
that the 1st respondent has filed two separate applications before the tribunal
viz., O.A.No. 1579 of 2017 challenging the said show cause notice dated
30.06.2017 and another O.A.No. 1410 of 2018 challenging the order passed
by the petitioner dated 05.03.2018, confirming the proposal in the said show
cause notice. The said applications were disposed of by the tribunal
direction to consider the case of the application in light of the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tribunal passed in O.A.No. 1013 of 2014, dated 06.04.2016 relied by the
applicant.
5. The contention of the petitioner-department is that the tribunal
without considering the fact that the criminal appeal filed by the 1 st
respondent is pending as on date before the Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court, has directed the petitioner-department to consider the case of the
petitioner in light of the order passed in O.A.No.1013 of 2014, dated
06.04.2014 which was ordered based on the criminal appeal ended in
acquittal.
6. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that the criminal appeal filed by the 1st respondent in Crl.A (MD).No.
140 of 2015 was allowed and conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st
respondent was set aside by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
by Judgment dated 28.02.2020. A copy of the said judgment was also
placed before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the said acquittal from charges and in view of no
disciplinary proceedings are pending as against the 1st respondent as on
date, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent is entitled for
retirement benefits. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
i. The 1st respondent is directed to submit a fresh representation to the
petitioner-department requesting retirement benefits, within a period
of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii. Upon receipt of such representation, the petitioner-department shall
consider the same and pass appropriate orders for granting retirement
benefits to the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(D.K.K., J.) (P.D.B., J.)
22.112023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND
P. DHANABAL, J.
ak
and WMP.No 256 and 258 of 2020
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
