VIPIN SANGHI J.

CM APPL. 2577/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 574/2019

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (CAT) in OA No. 3015/2016.

2. The petitioner had preferred the said OA to claim interest on delayed release of retiral dues. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 25.01.2007, wherein, the following Articles of Charge were framed against him :

“Article – I

Shri R.K.Sehgal, while posted as Income-tax Officer, Ward 12 (3), New Delhi, during the period from 06.06.2005 to 31.12.2006, issued notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in 31 cases for the A.Y. 2005-06, listed in the Annexure-II, with the intention of completing assessments in these cases under scrutiny in clear violation of the guidelines captioned as ‘Procedure for selection of cases for scrutiny for corporate assessees reproduced on pages 24 to 28 of the Action Plan document for 2006-07. He has thus shown lack of integrity, lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby he contravened clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Article – II

Shri R.K.Sehgal, while posted as Income-tax Officer, Ward 12 (3), New Delhi, during the period from 06.06.2005 to 31.12.2006, issued notices u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in 31 cases for the A.Y. 2005-06, listed in the Annexure-II, on flimsy grounds such as ‘donations debited to P&L account’, ‘TDS not deposited in time’, ‘wrong figures of profit after tax has been taken’, ‘wrong claim of deduction u/s. 80G has been made’ etc. He has thus shown lack of integrity, lack of devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby he contravened clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

3. The petitioner retired on 31.01.2007. Under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, inquiry proceedings were continued. The said inquiry proceedings were closed on 24.12.2013, with the following order:

“AND WHEREAS on denial of the charges by the Charged Officer, an oral enquiry was instituted. The inquiry report was submitted on 13.04.2012. It was considered and examined in detail.

AND WHEREAS after careful examination and analysis of the IO’s report, CO’s comments on the enquiry report and the report of the erstwhile Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority had decided to drop the disciplinary proceedings.

NOW, THEREFORE, the President is pleased to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Memo No. No. CIT-IV/PS(RKS)/2006-07/245 dated 25.01.2007 subject to conveying displeasure of the Government to Shri R.K.Sehgal, ITO (Retd.), the charged officer.”

4. On the passing of the aforegoing order, the petitioner sought release of his retiral dues. The retiral dues thus, came to be paid to the petitioner, though, in instalments, which is taken note of by the Tribunal. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with his claim for interest on delayed release of his retiral dues. He asserted that since he retired on 31.01.2007, and his retiral dues were released 6-7 years later, he was entitled to interest on the belated payment. The Tribunal partly allowed the petitioner’s claim. In the impugned order, the Tribunal had taken note of the Govt. instructions issued under Rule 68 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said Rule deals with the aspect of the right of the Govt. servant to claim interest on delayed release of gratuity. The instructions issued by the Govt. under the said Rule, which have been noticed by the Tribunal, read as follows:

“Govt. of India’s Decisions (copy enclosed) is as under:

(1) Admissibility of interest on gratuity allowed after conclusion of judicial/departmental proceedings1. Under the rules, gratuity becomes due immediately on retirement. In case of a Government servant dying i