Interest on delayed payment of retirement gratuity and commuted pension value is payable where benefits are withheld due to disciplinary proceedings, following exoneration, based on statutory rules and equitable principles.

JUDGMENT

Original writ petitioner joined the service of Coffee Board in 1972 as a Field Assistant. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2012. He was working as Junior Liaison Officer at the time of retirement. In January 2012 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ext.P1 notice was issued to him on 3.1.2012. Three separate articles of charges were levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner denied the charges by filing a statement on 16.1.2012. The respondent Board appointed an enquiry officer and the enquiry was conducted before the retirement of the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer was against the petitioner. He was found guilty of all charges.

2. Copy of the enquiry report was provided to the petitioner and he submitted a detailed representation dated 19.11.2012 against the enquiry report. Retirement benefits were not disbursed on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner approached this Court in the above writ petition challenging the proceedings and seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent to disburse retirement benefits including gratuity, commuted value of pension and other benefits with interest from 31.7.2012. During the pendency of the writ petition the Department of Commerce, Government of India issued Ext.P17 order dated 24.5.2018 exonerating the petitioner of the charges. On 16.1.2021, original writ petitioner expired and the additional petitioners sought impleadment. By order in I.A.No.1/2021 the impleading application was allowed and additional petitioners were brought on record.

3. At the time of hearing, the Sri.Sreejesh M.K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only surviving grievance is with regard to interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits. The learned counsel submitted that the original writ petitioner was victimized by the respondent Board by initiating disciplinary proceedings when he was about to retire. The learned counsel contended that the charges were flimsy and hence the Government decided to exonerate the petitioner. However, the original petitioner who retired on 31.7.2012 was exonerated only on 24.5.2018 and monetary benefits due to him at the time of retirement were not disbursed. As the original petitioner was found not guilty ultimately, the respondent Board is liable to pay interest on the retirement benefits which were withheld. He hence submitted that the Board may be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% for delayed payments. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 3 SCC 44] .

4. Sri.Jai Mohan appearing for Coffee Board submitted that there was no culpable delay attributable to the Board in disbursing the pensionary benefits to the original petitioner. The learned counsel pointed out that the earned leave encashment was disbursed on 31.7.2012. Ad hoc bonus for the year 2011- 12 was a meager amount and that was disbursed on 24.2.2013. Another meager amount towards arrears of DA and DA on TA was disbursed on 15.2.2013. The amounts withheld on account of pendency of the proceedings were the retirement gratuity and commutation of pension. Those amounts were disbursed on 2.8.2018. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in view of Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which was applicable to the Board, in the case at hand gratuity was not payable until the conclusion of t