Ram Bux Singh vs RSRTC and Others

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter alia with the prayer that the respondents be directed to release his post retiral benefits viz. pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. together with interest @ 18% per annum.

The facts of the case are that petitioner retired from the services of the respondent-Corporation on 31.5.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was informed by letter dated 19.8.2008 that due to pendency of charge sheets of the year 1973, 1974 and 1976, his post retiral benefits cannot be released. Aggrieved thereby petitioner served a legal notice for demand of justice to the respondents and thereafter filed the present writ petition.

Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that unlike Rule 7, the Rajasthan Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 does not have any provision in their Standing Orders dealing with the matters to proceed in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. Learned counsel referred to the provisions contained in Chapter-5 of the said Standing Orders and in particular to Clause-36 and argued that aforesaid clause provides eight kind of different penalties that can be awarded, but does not include post retiral penalty such as stoppage, waiver of pension or otherwise. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in UCO Bank and Another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, and argued that in that case it was held that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after employee reaches his age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the same proposition of law relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others, wherein it was held that if the Orissa State Financial Corporations Act does not provide the disciplinary proceedings at the time of retirement, the disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the State Financial Corporation after his superannuation would lapse. The same was the proposition of law in division bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Dr. R.B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6829/1996 decided on 22.2.2000.

Smt. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that retiral benefits of the petitioner could not be paid because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings in different charge sheets issued to him on 12.1.1974, 24.5.1976, 3.3.1976, 5.4.1976 and 12.12.1973. Learned counsel however unable to point out any provision in the aforesaid Standing Orders or otherwise in any Rule or Regulation of the respondents to show that the disciplinary proceedings could be continued against an employee even after his superannuation.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Clause-36 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 reads as under:

"36. One or more of the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on a worker by a competent authority, penalties from (v) to (viii) shall be appealable-

(i) Censure. Three censures in a period of one year will involve withholding of one increment.

(ii) Withholding of increments of promotion.

(iii) Recovery from pay/wages of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the employer by negligence or, breach of any law.

(iv) Fine upto 2% of worker''s wages.

(v) Forfeiture of wages during the period or of suspension.

(vi) Reduction to a lower post or trade.

(vii) Termination of service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment.

(viii) Dismissal from service which shall be disqualification for future employment."

It would be evident from the above that the respondents have enumerated various penalties in the aforesaid clause, but there is no provision whereby either the respondents can decide to withhold or reduce the pension of a retired employee, nor otherwise indicated any penalty, which can be awarded to a retired employee.

Once it is found that there is no provision of continuing or conducting a disciplinary enquiry against an employee after his retirement or a disciplinary proceedings to be continued after his retirement, the respondents do not have any authority to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner on the basis of enquiry that was initiated long before his retirement. In fact, the petitioner retired on 31.5.2008 and the alleged disciplinary proceeding that was started against him, was of the year 1973, 1974 and 1976. If those enquiries do not come to their logical conclusion at such length of time, they should be treated as lapse for such an enormous delay.

The Supreme Court in UCO Bank, supra dealing with this subject in para 22 of the judgment as held as under:

"22. Drawing up of a charge sheet, therefore, is the condition precedent for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. We have noticed in paragraph 15 of our judgment that ordinarily no disciplinary proceedings can be continued in absence of any rule after an employee reaches his age of superannuation. A rule which would enable the disciplinary authority to continue a disciplinary proceedings despite the officers reaching the age of superannuation must be a statutory rule. A ''fortiori'' it must be a rule applicable to a disciplinary proceedings."

In Bhagirathi Jena, supra, the Supreme Court in para 6 of the report has held as under:

"6. In view of the absence of such provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellate had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement."

The Allahabad High Court in Dr. R.B. Agnihotri, supra also dealing with the same subject has held that in absence of expressed provision, departmental proceedings could not have been concluded after superannuation of the petitioner in that case.

In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum.

Compliance of the judgment be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this judgment is produced before the respondents.