Pension and gratuity are valuable constitutional rights in the nature of property that cannot be withheld based on mere pendency of an FIR investigation or inconclusive departmental proceedings not concluded before retirement.

O R D E R

1.The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Direct the respondents to sanction and release superannuation pension, gratuity, retrial benefits and other service benefits in favour of the applicant from the date of his entitlement along with interest;

AND Any other order, command or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant and against the respondents.”

2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police in the year 1987 and, on the strength of his consistent service record, came to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2022. It is his specific plea that he rendered about 37 years of unblemished service and earned commendations and rewards during his tenure. However, in the year 2023, an FIR bearing No. 0090/2023 under Sections 420/120-B RPC came to be registered against him by the Crime Branch, Jammu, on the basis of a complaint which, according to him, is false and motivated. It is further stated that although the applicant cooperated with the investigation, he was placed under suspension on 07.08.2024, just a few weeks prior to his retirement on 31.08.2024. Even after his retirement, neither any challan has been filed before the competent court, nor any memorandum of charges has culminated into a concluded departmental proceeding. Despite repeated approaches, his retiral benefits have not been released, compelling him to approach this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on various judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K. In case titled Mukhtar Ahmad Bhat Vs. UT of J&K and another, WP(C) No. 1218 of 2021, dated 22.08.2022, it has been observed:

12. It is, thus, abundantly clear that as is ordained by Rule 30 of Rules of 1956, it may not be permissible to hold disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee after he has been superannuated and this would be the position even if the disciplinary proceedings are initiated while such delinquent employee was in service. However, in terms of Article 168-A of the Regulations of 1956, nothing prevents the Government to hold departmental/disciplinary proceedings into the conduct of the officer/official which has resulted into a financial loss to the Government. These proceedings, however, would be limited only to determine the amount to be recovered from the pension of the government employee on account of losses found to have been caused to the Government by the negligent and fraudulent act of delinquent officer. There is, however, a caveat to the exercise of this power by the Government and the caveat is that where such departmental proceedings are initiated while the officer was on duty, these proceedings shall not proceed save with the sanction of the Government. These proceedings shall be instituted before the officer's retirement from service or within a year from the date on which he was last on duty or in respect of an event which has taken place not more than one year before the date on which the officer was last on duty. It is, thus, evident that if the Government fails to institute departmental proceedings for recovery of the amount on account of losses found to have been caused to the Government by negligence and fraud of delinquent officer or not instituted while the officer was in service shall not be insti