Point of Law: When disciplinary proceedings are pending, Government servant is entitled to provisional pension and pension cannot be withheld. The corollary is that when no disciplinary proceedings are pending, employee is entitled to release of full pensionary benefits. ”

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner who has superannuated from the respondent University as a Professor of School of International Studies, has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 17.05.2022 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner has been informed that his terminal benefits are not being released due to non-submission of his travel documents in relation to the visits, abroad made by him during his tenure of service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having retired without any disciplinary action initiated against him at any stage, his terminal benefits could not have been withheld by the respondent and that too on the ground of non-submission of his travel documents. He contends that no such direction to the petitioner to furnish his travel documents at this belated stage could be issued. In any event, in case, the respondent was of the view that the petitioner had not followed any guidelines or directions while in service, it was open for the respondent to initiate any action against the petitioner as per the applicable rules. Once it is an admitted position that the respondent has till date, not initiated any disciplinary action against the petitioner, it cannot be allowed to withhold his terminal benefits.

3. In support of his plea, he relies on decision dated 23.11.2020 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 10619/2019, Kunal Chakrabarti vs. Jawahar Lal Nehru University, wherein this Court had held that that the right to withhold pension, arises only if a government servant is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. He therefore prays that the respondent be directed to forthwith release the terminal benefits of the petitioner alongwith interest @18% p.a.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Ginny J. Rautray, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition by contending that the petitioner has been repeatedly directed to furnish details of his visits abroad along with copies of the necessary travel documents, which he has failed to do so for the last three years and, therefore, the respondent is handicapped in taking a decision as to whether any disciplinary proceedings are warranted against the petitioner. She submits that till the petitioner furnishes details of his visits abroad, the respondent cannot take a decision as to whether departmental proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, contends that at this stage, it would be premature to release the terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner till a final decision is taken on this aspect. She further submits that the petitioner be directed to submit details of his visits abroad along with copies of the necessary documents so as to enable the respondent to take a decision as to whether any disciplinary proceedings is warranted against him. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that the question raised in the present petition is fairly simple and does not really need any detailed deliberations. Once it is an admitted position that till date, the respondent has not initiated any action whatsoever against the petitioner and that too after one year of his superannuation, the respondent cannot continue to withhold his terminal benefits by contending that directions being issued to the petitioner since 2019 to submit the details of his travel abroad, are not being complied with. This Court is unable to appreciate as to why, the respondent has chosen not to take any action against the petitioner, if as claimed by it, that the petitioner was not responding to the requests of the respondent.

6. At this stage, it may be appropriate to note that learned counsel for the petitioner, while urging that the respondent cannot at this belated stage initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, submits, that in order to bring a quietus to the issue,