IMPORTANT POINT
Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 does not apply when no chargesheet was filed against the government servant at the time of retirement, and no judicial proceedings were pending.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral) - The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 108/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application preferred by the respondent/applicant and has directed the petitioner to release all terminal benefits to him.

2. The respondent who had joined as LDC in the Flood Control Wing under the Delhi Administration was after being promoted from time to time, transferred as Inspector in the Department of Trade and Taxes. On 08.10.2013, the CBI registered an FIR no. RC/DAI-2018-A-0029 against him and various other employees. Since no chargesheet/final report was filed in the Court at that stage, the respondent was on 12.03.2014 promoted as Superintendent Grade-I in the Directorate of Education from where he superannuated on 31.03.2014.

3. However, since despite the respondent having submitted all his pension papers within time, his terminal dues were not released; he made various representations which turned out to be futile. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned Tribunal seeking release of his pension and other terminal dues. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent by noticing the fact that the date on which the respondent superannuated from service, neither any departmental proceedings nor any criminal proceedings were pending against him.

4. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the Govt. of NCT Delhi. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that even though no chargesheet had been filed against the respondent when he superannuated on 31.03.2014, his misconduct was already under investigation by the CBI at that stage. He, therefore, contends that in view of the serious corruption charges levelled against him in the FIR filed by the CBI, the petitioner was justified in not releasing his terminal dues without vigilance clearance which could not be granted to him due to the ongoing investigation against him. He further seeks to place reliance on the decision of this Court dated 03.06.2016 in W. P. (C) No. 11860/2015 titled Union of India v. S.K. Gupta. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate that as per Rule 69(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, gratuity cannot be released to a Government servant till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings against him. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner is erroneously presuming that a mere registration of an FIR against the respondent would amount to pendency of judicial proceedings against him. He submits that the learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated that till chargesheet/final report was filed before the Court, it could not be said that any judicial proceedings were pending against him. The learned Tribunal was justified in directing that all his terminal dues be released. He, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed.

6. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, it may be apposite to note hereinbelow the findings of the learned Tribunal as contained in para 7 to 9 of the impugned order:

"7. The respondents neither in their counter filed on 15.04.2015 nor at the time of hearing of this case, have stated that the final report, after completing the investigation, is filed in the case registered against the applicant and that cognizance is taken by the Magistrate. Hence, as per the settled principles of law and as affirmed in the aforesaid decision, on which the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance, no Judicial proceedings have said to have been