Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh Malik vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
CWP-30778-2018 -1-
230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-30778-2018
Date of Decision: 13.03.2024
Raghbir Singh Malik ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Virdi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Udit Garg, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.2 to 6.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or directions, preferably a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make the payment
of full amount of pension as the petitioner presently is being paid provisional
pension (Annexure P-1), element of commutation of pension, gratuity, one
month's salary in lieu of non-availing of LTC for the block year 2016-2019
along with the penal interest for delay in payment of leave encashment,
element of commutation of pension, pension, one month's salary in lieu of non-
availing of LTC, gratuity, arrears of difference of full pension and provisional
pension to the petitioner.
2. The brief facts involved in the present case are that the petitioner
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
was working as an Executive Engineer in the respondent-Nigam and was
scheduled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. As
per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is having unblemished
record. However, just a few days before his retirement, a charge-sheet dated
12.04.2017 was served to him vide Annexure R-2/1 with an allegation that
while he was posted at Fatehabad in the year 2015, he did not verify some of
the documents of some reputed persons. During the pendency of the charge-
sheet, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2017, but he was not given any retiral
benefits except of 100% provisional pension. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-2 on
16.01.2018, the charges against the petitioner were dropped by the competent
authority. The petitioner had filed the present petition for release of the retiral
benefits. However, as per the learned counsel for the parties, during the
pendency of the present petition, the retiral benefits were already released to
the petitioner since the charges were dropped. Now the subject matter of the
present petition is restricted only for grant of interest on the delayed payments.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case
where due to the politics in the office when the petitioner was scheduled to
retire, a few days before the date of retirement, a charge-sheet was issued to
him on 12.04.2017 and thereafter he retired on 30.06.2017. To the aforesaid
charge-sheet, he had filed a reply and had supplied all the documents to the
concerned authority, but no inquiry officer was appointed. Thereafter, the
various comments were received from the various officers pertaining to the
explanation given by the petitioner and on the basis of the explanation given by
the petitioner to the charges against him, he was found to be innocent and
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
thereafter, instead of proceeding further vide Annexure P-2, the charges were
dropped. He further submitted that once the charges have been dropped and on
the basis of petitioner being innocent, he is entitled for grant of interest on the
delayed payment from the date of his retirement. He also submitted that the
petitioner has been granted leave encashment with a delay of 8 months, LTC
with a delay of 4 months, provisional pension with a delay of 1-4 months,
commutation of pension with a delay of 23 months and 15 days, DCRG with a
delay of 22 months and 15 days and gratuity with a delay of 43 months and 16
days. He further submitted that with regard to the LTC and provisional pension
with a delay of 1-4 months, he does not wish to press for the same, but he is
certainly entitled for the interest on the remaining of the aforesaid delay period.
The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of Full Bench of
this Court passed in "A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others",
1997(3) SCT 468, in this regard.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam
submitted that once there was a charge-sheet against the petitioner at the time
of his retirement then the respondent-Nigam was within its right to have
withheld the retiral benefits and 100% provisional pension paid to the
petitioner and after the dropping of the charges, if at all any, delay has
occurred, then the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delay to be calculated
after two months from the dropping of the charges. In this regard, he also
referred to Rule 79 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules-2016 and
also referred to Para No.5 of the reply wherein it has reproduced to contend
that when an employee against whom the charges have been dropped, he will
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
not be entitled for grant of interest since the time it has been dropped, no
interest shall be payable on the pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity. He
also referred to Annexure R-2/11 wherein after the charge-sheet was issued to
the petitioner, various comments were invited from not only from the petitioner
but from various officers and from where it can be seen that it was
recommended to take a lenient view which was a part of the comment of the
Superintending Engineer and therefore, it was because of the fact that a lenient
view was taken qua the petitioner since he has retired, the charges were
dropped and therefore, in view of Clause 79(6)(ii) of Haryana Civil Services
(Pension) Rules-2016, the petitioner is not entitled for the interest prior to the
dropping of the charges.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The present petition has been filed for grant of retiral benefits but
during the pendency of the same, the retiral benefits were released to the
petitioner on the aforesaid dates as mentioned by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Therefore, the only subject matter of the present petition is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payments
or not. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was served with a charge-
sheet on 12.04.2017 vide Annexure R-2/1 on the allegations that he did not
verify some documents pertaining to some recruitment. Thereafter, the
petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. Vide
Annexure P-2 dated 16.01.2018, the charges against the petitioner were
dropped. The aforesaid order of dropping of the charges against the petitioner
vide Annexure P-2 is reproduced as under:
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
"After having considered the charge sheet No.
02/Conf/DVN-3043 dated 12.04.2017 served upon Sh.
R.S. Malik/XEN (now, Retd.), reply thereto & the
comments of field offices, the competent authority has
decided to file the same.
Accordingly, the charge sheet No. 02/Conf/DVN-
3043 dated 12.04.2017 served upon Sh. R.S. Malik/XEN
(now, Retd.), is hereby filed.
This issues with the approval of Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, DHBVN, Hisar."
7. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that there is nothing
in the order to suggest that the charge-sheet has been dropped only because a
lenient view has been taken or that since the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation. However, on the other hand, a perusal of the aforesaid order
would show that after considering the charge-sheet and also the reply thereto
and the comments of the Field Offices that the competent authority decided to
file the same i.e drop the same. In other words, from the aforesaid order it is
crystal clear that the charges against the petitioner were dropped not because of
the only fact that since he has retired or that some lenient view was taken but it
appears that the charges were dropped on own its merits on the basis of the
reply submitted by the petitioner, the comments of the field offices that the
competent authority took a decision to drop the charges.
8. A perusal of the Annexure R-2/11 which has been referred by
learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam would show that when the
comments of the Superintending Engineer were invited which is so
incorporated in the aforesaid Annexure, he recommended that a lenient view
may be taken in deciding the charge sheet and thereafter, when the comments
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
of the Chief Engineer, OP were sought, he had so stated that the petitioner,
namely, Raghbir Singh Malik, XEN is innocent in the instant case and keeping
in view the above, the charge-sheet, in question, may be dropped and that the
petitioner was not directly responsible for the lapses. The aforesaid comments
of the Chief Engineer reproduced here as under:
"The CE/OP, DHBVN, Hisar vide memo
No. Ch- 80/ESG-973 dated 25.10.2017 has supplied the
comments on the defence reply submitted by the charged
officer, which is reproduced as under:-
The contents of charge sheet issued to the
officer, defence reply submitted by him & comments
offered by the SE OP' Circle DHBVN, Fatehabad vide
his office memo No. 1223/24 dated 04.10.2017 has gone
through & it is observed that the relevant documents are
verified by the concerned Dy. Supdt. of Division office &
issue of EPF & ESI is being dealt by Divnl. Accountant.
As such, the officer Sh. R.S. Malik Xen is not directly
responsible for the lapses. Moreover, the stay of the
officer at Fatehabad is only for 14 days. In such a short
span, he cannot be expected to find & fix the
responsibilities regarding lapses being committed by his
subordinates & take remedial measures. Therefore, Sh.
R.S.Malik, Xen is innocent in the instant case.
Keeping in view of above, the charge sheet, in
question, may please be dropped."
9. A perusal of the aforesaid would show that the charge-sheet was
dropped against the petitioner after finding him innocent on the basis of its own
merits and on the basis of the findings of the Chief Engineer wherein he has so
stated that the petitioner is innocent and charge-sheet against him may be
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
dropped and consequently, Annexure P-2 was passed wherein the charges were
dropped. Therefore, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the
respondents-Nigam that it was because a lenient view was taken and because of
the retirement of the petitioner, the charges were dropped is not only
unsustainable but is against the record itself. Therefore, it is clear that the
charges were dropped against the petitioner on its own merits by considering
the reply, comments of the Field Offices and by taking a conscious decision.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam has referred to Rule
79(6)(ii) of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules-2016 which has been so
reproduced in Para No.5 of the reply. However, strangely the preceding Rule
i.e Rule 79(6)(i) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules-2016 has not
been reproduced. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out to the aforesaid provision of Rule 79(6)(ii), wherein it has been so stated
that when an employee is clearly exonerated of all the charges during the
process of disciplinary proceedings and prove innocent, then the pension and
gratuity shall be paid to him along with interest. The aforesaid provision of
Rule 79(6) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules-2016 is reproduced
as under:
"(6) Where the Government employee against whom
disciplinary proceedings are pending at the time of
retirement and─
(i) he is clearly exonerated and steered clear of all the
charges during the process of disciplinary
proceedings and proved innocent, the pension and
death-cum-retirement gratuity due to him shall be
paid alongwith interest as per provisions laid
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
down in sub-rule (1).
(ii) he is held guilty, partially or fully, of the charges
leveled against him, or the same are dropped on
account of lack of evidence, i.e. he is not proved
innocent, or disciplinary proceedings are dropped
only on the grounds that the Government employee
has retired, no interest shall be payable on the
pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity if the
same have been authorized within three months
from the date of final decision on the disciplinary
proceedings. In case of delay, interest shall be
regulated as per provision laid down in sub-rule
(1) for the delayed period."
11. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the case of
the present petitioner would fall in Rule 79(6)(i) and not under Rule 79(6)(ii)
of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules-2016, since against him the
charges were dropped on the basis of being proved innocent and not because of
the reason that any lenient view was taken or that the charges were dropped
only because of the reason that he had retired and which is so evident from the
bare perusal of order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P-2), where the charges were
dropped as reproduced above.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of the
petitioner on the delayed payments from the date of its accrual i.e. to be
calculated after two months after his retirement till the date of its disbursal on
the following heads i.e leave encashment, commutation of pension, DCRG,
gratuity and other heads along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple). The
aforesaid amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038029
2024:PHHC:038029
from today.
13. In case, the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within a
period of two months from today, then the petitioner shall be entitled to future
interest @ 9% per annum (simple) instead of 6% per annum (simple).
13.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
