Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1618
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
J.P. Mahajan – Petitioner
Versus
Governing Body Kirori Mal College Delhi & Another – Respondents
W.P.(C). No. 3663 of 2017 & CM APPL. No. 16121 of 2017
Decided On : 30-07-2019
For the Petitioner:Ishan Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Santosh Kumar, Manav Gill, Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the employer to withhold retirement benefits and continue departmental proceedings post-retirement, as influenced by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi.
Headnote:
Retirement Benefits - University Teacher - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Statute 28-A of University of Delhi - Section 14, Section 18, Appendix B to Statute 28-A - The court discussed the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi in withholding retirement benefits of a university teacher. The court highlighted the absence of provisions authorizing the initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement and emphasized the non-obstante clause in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which overrides other enactments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a university teacher, sought the quashing of an order withholding retirement benefits and initiating disciplinary proceedings post-retirement. The petitioner's retirement benefits were withheld based on alleged financial irregularities in transferring funds for a UGC NET Examination. The petitioner argued that there were no rules empowering the respondents to withhold retirement benefits or initiate disciplinary proceedings post-retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi in allowing the withholding of retirement benefits and continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement. The court relied on precedents to support the employer's entitlement to continue departmental proceedings even after an employee's retirement.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the authority of the respondents to withhold retirement benefits and initiate disciplinary proceedings post-retirement, the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi, and the absence of specific provisions empowering such actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi, emphasizing the employer's entitlement to continue departmental proceedings even after an employee's retirement. The court highlighted the non-obstante clause in Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which prevails over other enactments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the respondents and allowing the withholding of retirement benefits and continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement based on the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and Statute 28-A of University of Delhi.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking prayer as under: -
(a) Pass a writ/order/direction quashing the Impugned Order contained in letter dated 17.02.2017 issued by respondent no.1 whereby the petitioner’s terminal/retirement benefits have been withheld;
(b) Pass an order directing respondent no.1 to release the retirement benefits comprising Gratuity, Employer’s contribution to CPF and Leave encashment along with interest @ 18% per annum;
(c) Pass a Writ/order/direction quashing the Charge-sheet dated 23.02.2017 whereby disciplinary proceedings have been initiated/instituted against the petitioner after his retirement by respondent no.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as teacher w.e.f. 01.09.1973 in the Commerce Department of Kirori Mal College (hereinafter referred to as “the College”). On 28.02.1992, an agreement of service for College teachers was entered into between the petitioner and respondent no.1 with retrospective effect from 01.09.1973 i.e. the date of appointment of the petitioner.
3. In the month of November, 2012, the College received an invitation from the University Grants Commission (UGC) to act as Coordinating Institution for “UGC-National Eligibility Test” for December, 2012. Thereafter on 27.11.2012, UGC sent first grant of Rs.75 lacs to the College for conducting the UGC Net Exams. Vide letter No. F No.6-17/12 (NET) dated 05.12.2012 UGC gave ‘no objection certificate’ to the Principal of the College to open a separate Bank account for UGC NET exam. On 28.12.2012, the petitioner was appointed as Bursar of the College for a period of three years. The acting Principal of the College and the petitioner, vide letter dated 07.06.2013 requested the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce to transfer Rs.75 lacs to UGC-Net Centre Account from Kirori Mal College General Fund Account as the same was wrongly credited by UGC in the General Fund Account of the College.
4. On 05.07.2013, the petitioner asked for clarification from the Acting Principal of the College, Sh. S. P. Gupta, about his role as College Bursar in the whole UGC NET Examination Account. On 07.07.2013, the petitioner was informed by the Acting Principal that UGC NET Examination Account is not a College account and Bursar of the College is not a signatory to this account and, therefore, its accounts are to be submitted to UGC only.
5. Further case of the petitioner is that on 14.10.12014, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CC No.896/1/2014 u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. titled as “Mithilesh Kumar vs. S.P. Gupta”, directed the police to lodge an FIR against the petitioner and other accused persons, namely, Sh. S.P. Gupta, Sh. Rajinder Maan, Sh. Baleshwar Rai and Sh. Sheroj Singh for financial irregularities in the UGC NET Examination.
6. Accordingly, on 20.10.2014, police registered FIR No.204/2014 under sections 120-B, 409, 419, 420, 466, 468, 471 & 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (1) & (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and the other co-accused.
7. The petitioner challenged the said order of the learned Magistrate by way of petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being CRL.M.C. 5815/2014 and the same is pending before this Court. However, on 26.03.2016, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the Principal of the College as to why action against him should not be taken for alleged unauthorized transfer of Rs.75 lacs of UGC NET Exam. The petitioner sent his reply vide letter dated 01.04.2016.
8. On 30.04.2016, respondent no.1 constituted an Empowered Fact Finding Committee (EFFC) with a duty to work out a clear picture of admissible and inadmissible expenditure based on the genuineness or otherwise of the vouchers and also to report on the irregularities and violations of norms of General Financial Rules (GFR) in incurring the said expenditure out of grant of Rs.1.5 crore by UGC for conducting UGC NET Examination for December, 2012 and June 2013. The
