Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 259 (HP)

DAULAT RAM v. STATE OF H. P.

2007-06-25

VIJAY PAL SINGH

body2007
JUDGEMENT Vijay Pal Singh, Members (A):- The applicant herein has prayed for the relief that the respondents be directed to release Death cum Retirement Gratuity of the applicant amounting to Rs. 1,54,836 after deducting rs.7,000-/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. September 19,2001 the date when the matter of departmental disciplinary proceedings was over against the applicant. 2. In brief, the case of the applicant as made out in this Original Application is that the applicant while working as Deputy Ranger Common disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and other three forest officials vide order dated April 21,1998. In the said disciplinary proceedings a minor penalty of recovery of proportionate loss to the Govt. Amounting to Rs.7000/- was imposed on the applicant vide order dated September 19,2001, copy whereof is at Annexure A-1. The applicant superannuated on March 31,2001 from the service but the death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of the application amounting to Rs. 1,54,836/- has not been released to him till date despite the representation submitted by the applicant to respondent No.4 that amount of penalty imposed vide order September 19,2001 may be deducted from the amount of his DCRG. The applicant also submitted the representation to the respondent No.2 in the year 2004 and pursuant to this representation, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated November 19,2004 (Annexure A-2) directed the respondents No.3 and 4 to release the payment of DCRG to the applicant forthwith but even after this communication Annexure A-2, the amount o f DCRG has not been released to the applicant. Thus the non-releasing the due and admissible amount to DCRG to the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful, hence this Original Application. 3. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and averred in their reply that the applicant was charge sheeted by the respondent No.4 in case of disciplinary proceedings and minor penalty was imposed vide order dated September 19,2001 for the recovery of proportionate loss to the Govt. of H.P. amounting to Rs.7000/- on the applicant after conducting inquiry as per CCS and CCA Rules. In addition to this the applicant was also involved in another case F.I.R.No.127/1996 titled State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar and others which was decided by the learned Special Judge Bilaspur on June 11,2004 with the direction to the respondent department to hold departmental enquiry in this case. In addition to this the applicant was also involved in another case F.I.R.No.127/1996 titled State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar and others which was decided by the learned Special Judge Bilaspur on June 11,2004 with the direction to the respondent department to hold departmental enquiry in this case. A copy of the decision of learned Court is at Annexure R-1. However, the applicant has been acquitted by the acquitted by the learned court but this judgment/order has been assailed by the State Govt. before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing Criminal Appeal No.362/2004 which is pending adjudication. Thus, in these circumstances as per the provisions of Rule 69 (c) of Pension Rules, 1972 the DCRG benefits cannot be released to the applicant who superannuated on March 31, 2002 (instead on March 31,2001) till the final decision of the case. The penalty amount ofrs.700/- can only be adjusted after the final decision of the aforesaid criminal Appeal. The Original Application is devoid of merit and may be dismissed in the interest of justice. 4. The applicant filed rejoinder wherein he denied the grounds of defence taken by the respondents and reiterated the claim as in the Original Application and further stated that the subject matter of the departmental enquiry case No.PF/242-45 decided vide Annexure A-1 and session trial based on FIR 127/96 are the same but this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur at the time when the Criminal trial was decided on June 11,2004. The applicant cannot be time and again dealt with the penalized on the same set of allegations. As the matter has already been decided both departmentally as well as by the learned trial court there is no justification to which hold the amount of DCRG payable to the applicant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel or the parties and perused the record. 6. It is admitted position of the case that the application has retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on March 31,2000- and on the date of his retirement one departmental enquiry and case FIR No.27/1996 titled State of HP Vs. Pawan Kumar and ors. were pending against him. The D.C.R. of the applicant was not released because of the pendency of departmental and judicial proceedings against him as per provisions of Rule 69(c) of Pension Rules, 1972. Pawan Kumar and ors. were pending against him. The D.C.R. of the applicant was not released because of the pendency of departmental and judicial proceedings against him as per provisions of Rule 69(c) of Pension Rules, 1972. In the said disciplinary proceedings, a minor penalty of Rs.7000/- was imposed on the applicant vide order dated September 19,2001 Annexure A-1. In the judicial proceedings (case FIR No.127/1996), the applicant has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated June 11, 2004 Annexure R-1 but this judgment/order has been assailed by the State Government before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing criminal appeal No.362/2004 which is pending adjudication. 7.The learned counsel or the application has argued that the preferment of acquittal appeal cannot be regarded as the continuance of the trial and in support of his arguments has cited Suridner Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and another, 1985(3) SLR 254 wherein the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has observed that as a result of the lodgment(sic-judgment) of the first information,, the petitioner was detained in custody and that after investigation, he was put up for trial in two cases before a criminal court,. The trial court convicted him but the appellate court acquitted him in both the cases. 8. The orders of acquittal are indubitably under challenge in the High Court. The preferment of acquittal appeals cannot, however, be regarded as the continuance of the trial. The trials have concluded with the judgment of acquittal. The initial presumption of innocence must, therefore, be regarded as having been doubtedly reinforced by orders of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is required to be re-instated in service on and with effect from the date of the orders of acquittal. 9. In view of above referred settled position of law by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the trial against the applicant has concluded with the judgment of acquittal on June 11,2004. 10. It is not in dispute that after the decision in the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant has submitted the representations to the respondents for the release of his D.C.R.G after deducting Rs.7,000/- the amount of penalty imposed vide order Annexure A-1. 11. 10. It is not in dispute that after the decision in the disciplinary proceedings, the applicant has submitted the representations to the respondents for the release of his D.C.R.G after deducting Rs.7,000/- the amount of penalty imposed vide order Annexure A-1. 11. Paras 3 and 4 of Government of Indias decisions under Rule 68 of CCS (pension) Rules provides for admissibility of interest on gratuity on exoneration after conclusion of judicial/disciplinary proceedings and the same are as under:- 3. In order to mitigate the hardship to the government servants who on the conclusion of the proceedings are fully exonerated, it has been decided that the interest on delayed payment of retirement gratuity may also be allowed in their cases, in accordance with the aforesaid instructions. In other words, in such cases, the gratuity will be deemed to have fallen due on the date following the date of retirement for the purpose of payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The benefit of these instructions will, however, not be available to such of the Government servants who die during the dependency of judicial/disciplinary proceedings against them and against whom proceedings are consequently dropped. 4. These orders (Paragraph 3) shall take effect from the 10th January, 1983. 12.As is evident from above, in the disciplinary proceedings, a minor penalty of recovery of proportionate loss to the Government of Rs.7,000 was imposed on the applicant vide order dated September 19,2001 and in the judicial proceedings, the applicant has been acquitted. 13.In view of above discussions, the applicant is entitled for his with held gratuity after deducting Rs.7.000/- the amount of penalty and interest on due and admissible gratuity i.e. Rs.1,47,836 (1.54.836-7.000) beyond a period of three months from the date of his retirement. 14.As a result, this Original Application is allowed with the directions to respondents to release the due and admissible gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,47,836/-to the applicant with interest @ 9% p.a. beyond the period of 3 months from the date of his retirement that is w.e.f. July 1,2000 till the amount is paid to him. This order be implemented within three months from the date of this order. 15. No order as to costs.