Terminal benefits cannot be withheld solely due to pending criminal proceedings without judicial findings against the employee, affirming employee rights against arbitrary actions.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner who superannuated from the service of the respondent no.1 way back on 28.06.2019, has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent no.1 to release all his terminal benefits including Encashment of Earned Leave, Encashment of Half Pay Leave, Gratuity, Service Award and Benevolent Fund amounting to Rs.26,06,018/-. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to forward, in terms of the PEC Limited Employees Defined Contributable Superannuation Funds Scheme (hereinafter referred to as `Scheme'), his application to the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) for release of pension to him w.e.f. July, 2019.

2. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground that, till the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, initiated by the CBI, in which a charge-sheet has already been filed, are concluded, he cannot be released either his aforesaid terminal benefits, or his pension.

3. Insofar as the petitioner's claim regarding his terminal benefits other than pension, are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in terms of para 32(i) of the Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as `Rules') the respondent no.1 has the power to withhold these terminal benefits of the petitioner, including encashment of earned leave and half-pay leave, as also his gratuity, service award and benevolent fund, till the criminal proceedings against him are concluded.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that these Rules do not deal with the payment of terminal benefits of an employee, and do not in any manner, entitle the respondents to withhold the terminal dues of an employee who stands superannuated. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties on this aspect, it would be apposite to note para 32(i) of the Rules, which reads as under:

32. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES:

Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 27 or 28 or 29, the Board may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 25 in any of the following circumstances:

1. The employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial;"

5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that the same deals with imposition of penalties on an employee on the basis of the findings of the criminal court, and does not in any manner, envisage imposition of a penalty, merely on the basis of pendency of criminal proceedings. Once it is an admitted position that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are still pending, and as on date, no findings against him have been recorded by any criminal court, the respondents cannot rely on para 32(i) of the Rules to withhold his terminal benefits. The action of the respondents is clearly unsustainable, and amounts to unjustifiably harassing an employee, who superannuated from service almost 31/2 years ago, after rendering more than 34 years of service.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even otherwise, the petitioner's claim for gratuity is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to approach the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

7. In my view, even though the learned counsel for the respondent is correct in urging that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the Controlling Authority, for release of his gratuity, the fact which needs to be noted is that