K. Haripal, Member J
1. Applicant is a former Postal Assistant, who retired from service on superannuation on 28.02.2021. She had started her career as Reserved Trained Pool Postal Assistant on 18.02.1983, and was regularised on 28.05.1990. While working as Postal Assistant under the 4th respondent, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her in 2013 under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, alleging embezzlement of money. Ultimately, on the basis of observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in Annexure-A2 judgment, after her retirement on 28.02.2021 the proceeding was dropped on 22.02.2022. According to the applicant, she was granted retiral benefits long after retirement and therefore, is entitled to get interest for delayed payment. Such a representation was rejected by the impugned order, Annexure-A1. Aggrieved by the same, she has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act seeking to quash Annexure-A1 and to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate applicable to GPF on the delayed payment of gratuity for the period from 01.06.2021 till payment of the amount. Applicant submits that Annexure-A1 is arbitrary, discriminatory and was issued without application of mind. The Hon’ble High Court had observed in Annexure-A2 that the disciplinary proceedings should have been conducted bearing in mind the fact that the applicant was due for retirement on 28.02.2021. The Review petition was also dismissed. Thus, there is no justification in prolonging the matter from 2013. The respondents had also illegally recovered an amount of Rs.2,28,528/- from her gratuity, which is under challenge through another OA. There is no justification in delaying the proceedings and delaying payment of her gratuity and therefore, according to the applicant, the respondents are bound to pay interest.
2. The respondents have opposed the prayers. According to them, the very O.A. is misconceived and not maintainable. In the order of this Tribunal in O.A.466/2018, which was the subject matter of Annexure-A2, this Tribunal had observed that the delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings was owing to the filing of various proceedings before this Tribunal and the High Court. After hearing both sides, in Annexure-A2 judgment, the High Court declined to quash the order of this Tribunal. The High Court also directed to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within four months, failing which, it was pointed out, that the entire proceedings would be quashed automatically. Meanwhile, the applicant retired from service and hence proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules had to be continued converting it under Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. Referring to Annexure-A6 judgment of the High Court in Cont. of Court Case(C) No.223/2022 it was observed that there was a direction to release the pensionary benefits within reasonable time. That means, even the High Court had granted reasonable time for releasing the pensionary benefits. Similarly, in Annexure-R1(a) order of the Tribunal in O.A.502/2021 also they were granted liberty to comply with the order of the High Court within two months. The pensionary benefits were released within two months on 18.05.2022.
3. According to the respondents, the applicant is entitled to get interest on delayed payment only if such delay is attributable to the administrative reasons or lapses; no such administrative reasons or lapses can be attributable to the respondents.
4. Further, according to the respondents, delay had occurred in finalising the disciplinary proceedings due to the volitions of the applicant herself, who had frequently moved bias petitions against the enquiry authorities, which had resulted in unnecessary delay in concluding the proceedings. So, the respondents have maintained that since there is no administrative delay or lapses on their part, they have no liability to pay interest on delayed payment.
5. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the O.A., whereas the respondents filed an additional reply also.
6. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
7. It is not disputed that the applicant had retired from service on 28.02.2021 as Postal Assistant. During the period in service, the respondents had initiated disciplinary proceedings against her under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, in 2013. However, those proceedings did not reach a logical conclusion until her date of retirement on 28.02.2021. The parties have raised conflicting reasons for not finalising the disciplinary proceedings. On the one hand, according to the applicant, even though proceeding under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules was initiated in 2013, even after long lapses, the proceeding was not concluded and thus she retired from service on superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings. Highlighting Annexure-A2 judgment of the High Court the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, had the disciplinary authority taken the matter in right seriousness, the disciplinary proceedings would have been completed much ahead of her date of retirement. So, according to the learned Counsel, the delay in conclusion of the proceedings is referrable to the lapses and non-feasance on the part of the respondents.
8. On the other hand, according to the respondents, such delay is attributable to the dilatory tactics adopted by the applicant. Immediately after service of the memo of charges and statement of allegations, she had moved this Tribunal seeking to quash the same. Thereafter, when that attempt failed, she started dilatory tactics by filing bias petitions against the enquiry officer. Thus she wanted to prolong the proceedings under one pretext or the other. So, according to the respondents, the entire blame for non-conclusion of the domestic enquiry is on the applicant and that was how the retiral benefits were delayed.
9. From the materials made available before the Tribunal, it is certain that the disciplinary action initiated in 2013 did not reach a logical conclusion till 28.02.2021. Meanwhile, a notification was issued by the Government incorporating sub-Rule 24 to Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules making mandatory that disciplinary proceedings should ordinarily be concluded within a period of six months. The applicant wanted to take benefit of the amendment. This Tribunal rejected the plea on the premise that the amendment did not have retrospective operation. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, which was decided through Annexure-A2. In Annexure-A2, even though it was observed that the respondents ought to have expedited the disciplinary proceedings ahead of her date of retirement, ultimately, upholding the order of the Tribunal the respondents were directed to finalise the proceedings within a period of four months. It was also held that if it is not disposed of within four months, the disciplinary proceedings would stand automatically cancelled.
10. The High Court also directed the respondents to re-consider the feasibility of continuing the proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, having regard to the fact that there are no serious allegations that the applicant had committed any fraud or misappropriation. After evaluating all the circumstances, ultimately the proceedings were dropped on 22.02.2022 bearing in mind the directions of the High Court that there was no loss to the department and the amount involved was only Rs.8,744.18 only which was cleared by the applicant on 12.05.2012 and that the event had taken place in 2011. That recommendation was accepted by the competent authority and ultimately proceedings initiated against her were dropped by Annexure-A5 order dated 22.02.2022.
11. That means, any cause of action for claiming interest begins to run only from 22.02.2022 and not from the date of retirement or from 01.06.2021. The look out of the Tribunal is whether the amount was released within a reasonable period from 22.02.2022.
12. It is not disputed by the applicant that the entire pensionary benefits were released to her by 18.05.2022. According to the respondents, this Tribunal, in Annexure-R1(a) order dated 18.03.2022, had directed to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court within two months. So, according to the respondents, well within two months from Annexure-R1(a) the entire benefits were released so that the applicant is not entitled to get any interest.
13. The matter in dispute confines to the question as to whether the applicant is entitled to get interest on the gratuity for delayed payment. It has come out that gratuity was released to her after deducting an amount of Rs.2,28,528/- being the department dues. Correctness of that recovery is under challenge separately.
14. Rule 68(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules makes it abundantly clear that the pensioner is entitled to claim interest on delayed payment of gratuity if it is clearly established that the 'delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or lapses'. That means, if there is administrative lapses or delay on the part of the employer, certainly the retired Government servant is entitled to get interest on the delayed payment. But here, after perusing various materials and records made available by the parties, this Tribunal is unable to arrive at a conclusion that the entire blame should be cast upon the respondents. It is very patent that the applicant had contested the disciplinary proceedings tooth and nail from the very threshold of serving the memo of charges and statement of allegations. It is also obvious that even after rejecting her initial plea the disciplinary proceeding was moving at a slow pace since the applicant had raised objections at every stage. More than once, she had moved the disciplinary authority by filing bias petitions against the enquiry officer. On numerous occasions she had approached this Tribunal and therefore, as observed by this Tribunal in the order in O.A.466/2018, a copy of which has been made available by the learned counsel, the disciplinary proceeding was delayed mainly because of filing of various O.A.s and OP(CAT). After adopting such a strategy which naturally resulted in delaying the proceedings, she cannot be heard to say that the respondents were responsible for delaying the proceedings. After evaluating various facts and circumstances, I find it difficult to say that there is administrative lapses or delay or negligence on the part of the respondents.
15. Learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on the decisions in State of Kerala and others v. M.Padmanabhan Nair [1980(5) KLT 86], 1985 (1) SCC 429, S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and another [(2008) 3 SCC 44] and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in OP(CAT) No.568/2023. Those cases have turned up on its own facts. Unless, it is established that there was administrative lapses or delay on the part of the employer, the latter has no liability to pay interest.
Resultantly, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 30th July, 2024)
