HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.11.2019 (Annexure P-19) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of petitioner for interest has been rejected. Further praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest on delayed payment of Rs.6,89,320/- @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.07.2006 up to the date of payment i.e. 29.10.2009.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents on 31.07.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that barely one and a half months prior to his retirement, a charge-sheet dated 10.05.2006 (Annexure P-5) came to be served upon him, followed by another charge-sheet dated 11.09.2006 (Annexure P-6). It is further contended that on account of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld and were ultimately released only in the year 2009. Learned counsel submits that such withholding of retiral benefits, for a prolonged period, is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is argued that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in the disbursement of retiral dues, which amounts to deprivation of the petitioner’s legitimate right to timely payment. On this premise, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment in terms of the law laid down by the Full Bench in A.S. Randhawa, Superintending Engineer (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab, 1998 (1) SCT 343, wherein it has been held that delayed release of retiral benefits warrants grant of interest.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Nigam submits that the delay in release of retiral dues was neither intentional nor arbitrary, but occurred on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 10.05.2006. It is submitted that the said proceedings culminated on 25.08.2009, and immediately thereafter, the retiral dues of the petitioner were processed and released on 29.10.2009 without any further delay. Learned counsel argues that the respondents were justified in withholding the retiral benefits during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with the applicable rules. It is, thus, contended that no fault can be attributed to the respondents, and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest.

On these grounds, dismissal of the present writ petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It emerges from the record that the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents on 31.07.2006 upon attaining the age of superannuation. A charge-sheet dated 10.05.2006 was issued to him shortly prior to his retirement, followed by another charge- sheet dated 11.09.2006. The disciplinary proceedings arising therefrom remained pending and ultimately culminated only on 25.08.2009. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the retiral dues of the petitioner were withheld and came to be released thereafter on 29.10.2009.

4.1 Admittedly, the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not released for a considerable period on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. It is a settled proposition of law that such proceedings are required to be concluded within a reasonable period and with due diligence. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another (2015), wherein it has been emphasized that disciplinary proceedings ought not to be prolonged unnecessarily and must be concluded with reasonable expedition.

5. A Two Judge Bench