ABDUL RAJAK vs CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LIMITED

Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction upon the respondents for payment of pension and other postÂ​retiral benefits to the petitioner.Â

The petitioner who was appointed on 21.09.1978 under Pindra Colliery was served a superannuation notice dated 06.09.2011 indicating his date of

retirement on 30.09.2011. In the counterÂaffidavit, the respondents have disclosed that on a complaint received from one Amelun Khatoon alleging

that the petitioner secured employment through fraudulent means an enquiry was instituted. During preliminary enquiry, the petitioner has admitted the

fact that he is not the brother of Smt. Amelun Khatoon rather, he is related to mother of  Smt. Amelun Khatoon. Before initiation of the enquiry

proceeding, a chargeÂsheet dated 01.08.2011 was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his response on 19.08.2011. Finding his response

not satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 29.08.2011. In the inquiry proceeding, the petitioner participated and finally the

enquiring officer submitted a report on 29.09.2011, finding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. In the meantime, the petitioner

superannuated from service on 30.09.2011 and accordingly, a legal opinion was sought on claim for payment of postÂretiral benefits. The respondents

have pleaded that in view of the fortuitous position which occurred on superannuation from service of the petitioner before a final order was passed in

the departmental enquiry, the claim for postÂretiral benefits cannot be entertained. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not claimed that a copy of

the enquiry report was not served upon him though, he has disclosed issuance of chargeÂ​memo and his explanation submitted to the respondents.

Referring to the letter dated 06.09.2011 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents themselves have admitted in the office

order dated 06.09.2011 that the petitioner is entitled for all postÂretiral benefits including, the pension.    The learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied on a decision in “State of Jharkhand And Others vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava And Anotherâ€Â reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 to

contend that mere pendency of a departmental proceeding is not a ground to withhold pension and other postÂretiral benefits. However, Miss Pooja

Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondentÂCCL submits that a person who has secured employment through fraudulent means cannot lay a

claim for payment of postÂ​retiral benefits. Â

No doubt, a departmental proceeding terminates on a decision by the disciplinary authority, either exonerating the delinquent from the charges or

awarding punishment for the misconduct found proved, however, on admitted facts when it is found that the enquiring officer has returned a

conclusive finding that the petitioner has secured employment impersonating himself as son of Amelun Khatoon, the petitioner cannot be permitted to

take benefit of the fortuitous circumstance which has occurred on his superannuation from service. In the case of “Jitendra Kumar Srivastava†,

it has been held that if in the departmental proceeding it is found that the employee has committed grave misconduct while in service, his retiral

benefits can be withheld/ forfeited. The petitioner who has secured employment by fraudulent means must be held guilty of committing grave

misconduct. His service under the employerM/s CCL, on account of fraud committed by him, cannot be said to be meritorious on account of which

he would have earned a right to receive pension and other postÂretiral benefits. In fact, good and satisfactory conduct is a preÂcondition for grant

of pension. In a catena of judgments the Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates everything, and, in my opinion, once fraud is detected service

rendered by an employee, even good works, must stand excluded from consideration for grant of any service benefit, during or after his retirement, to

the employee.

In the above facts, finding no substance in the plea raised by the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed. Â