The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suspension period does not evaporate upon retirement, and the release of retirement benefits is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court emphasized the restrictions on the release of gratuity and provisional pension during pending judicial proceedings.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This writ petition impugns the order dated 20.02.2015 of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3726/2013, which has, inter alia, observed that since the respondent on attaining the age of superannuation was allowed to retire without any objection, hence his earlier period of suspension got automatically revoked and the relationship of master and servant came to an end. Consequently, the petitioners (employer) would have no jurisdiction to pass any further orders, and therefore, the order dated 13.09.2013, which was passed after the superannuation was not sustainable. The Tribunal quashed the said order. The petitioner was directed to regulate payment of the respondent’s pension and other terminal benefits including full gratuity and leave encashment. It stands directed that the petitioners would:-

“….. consider paying him the composite transfer grant, transportation charges for personal effects and car and air tickets for setting at Godnia, Maharashtra in accordance with the rules. If the Respondents have withheld his salary for 1st and 2nd June, 2011 without any valid reason, it shall also be paid to him. Further the applicant is entitled to get interest at 9% on all the aforesaid benefits withheld by them from the respective dates they became due to the actual date of payment. They shall also apply the item-wise calculation sheets for all the payments to be made. Further, they shall pass appropriate orders in the matter under intimation to him. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.….”

2. The facts of the case are that while working as Deputy Director General in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, a criminal case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 was registered against the respondent. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours, whereupon he was deemed to have been suspended from the date of his arrest i.e. 02.06.2012. He continued to remain under suspension until he superannuated on 31.05.2012. Terminal benefits under the head of CGEGIS, GPF and provisional pensions were released to him in view of Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 1972 Rules). His request for gratuity and commutation of pension was declined on the ground that till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings were pending against him, the said benefits could not be released in view of Rule 4 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 (for short 1981 Rules).

3. Resultantly, the respondent had approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. for payment of his post-retirement benefits, leave encashment and gratuity etc. which was denied to him at the time of his retirement since he was under suspension, on the ground that the leave account could not be closed and a view in the matter would be taken only upon conclusion of the criminal proceedings against him. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. and passed the directions as mentioned hereinabove. During the pendency of the O.A., the leave encashment amount had been partly released for 254 days amounting to Rs. 8,68,375/-. However, the respondent was not paid the 92 days half pay leave, composite transfer grant, transportation charges for personal effects, care and air tickets for settling at Gondia, Maharashtra.

4. The Tribunal had relied upon the dictum of the Karnataka High Court in R.S. Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. 1982 (1) KarLJ 156, which held that when a government servant was allowed to retire from service voluntarily, the service relationship of master and servant ceased to exist as there was severance of status. Therefore, any criminal prosecution already launched or which could be launched against the former employee would not alter his status, hence a subsequent order of revocation of suspension could not arise. In such circums