TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for seeking the reliefs as follows: (i) The compensation for amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for harassment and mental agony caused to the petitioner. By making delayed payment of his pension and other retiral benefits pursuing a mala fide departmental proceeding. (ii) For providing statutory interest against his entitlement or to pay interest in the market rate coupled with penal interest from the date the entitlement were due till the date of payment. Also for the delay in payment of pension including commutation of the pension, and (iii) For payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. [3] Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, he had filed the representation and expressed grievance against some casual observations made against him in the said report. But as the final order was not passed, the petitioner had filed a representation on 29.08.2019 but no action came forth. [5] Finally, the petitioner filed the said writ petition for expediting the departmental proceeding to its end. In the perspective fact as above, this court had occasion to direct the respondents by the judgment dated 14.12.2017, which disposed of the said petition to take the final decision. The decision as contained in the communication dated 15.12.2016 was set aside. The respondents were directed to take fresh decision based on the enquiry report. It is apparent from the said judgment th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted on 20.09.2019 through the engaged counsel. In reply to the representation, the respondents by their communication dated 08.11.2019 informed the said counsel that there were serious blemish against the petitioner. As such, the department proceeding cannot be wound up. The petitioner was, no doubt, charged for violation of Rule 3 (i), (ii), (iii) and Rule 3 (2) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. In the said reply, they had denied the allegations brought by the notice. It has been further stated that those statements in the notice were misleading and not based on facts. They also stated how they had taken steps for release of due to the petitioner, but for procedural compliance, some delay took place which was completely uninten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory interest as well as the compensatory interest. The petitioner, in respect of the reply filed by the respondents has stated for compliance of procedural nitty gritty, such delay did not take place. The petitioner filed the rejoinder to counteract the statements of the respondents. The petitioner has stated in the rejoinder that the departmental proceeding was kept pending for almost six years and on that pretext, all the benefits due to him were withheld and finally at the intervention of this court, the disciplinary proceeding was wound up. [9] Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel having referred to Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has submitted that the said provisions clearly lay down that in the event of delayed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... extension order, but the order was passed on 18.10.2018 after observing all required steps that delay was totally unintentional. [11] Mr. Majumder, learned ASG has submitted that delay was bonafide and no officer can be blamed for that. Mr. Majumder, learned ASG has reiterated that serious charges were framed against the petitioner, but during the enquiry there was no conclusive evidence according to the enquiry officer. As a result while the disciplinary authority was considering the enquiry report verified by the Central Vigilance Commission, the petitioner had approached this court. During the hearing of the said writ petition, the respondents did not place the laid down procedure for completing such enquiry. As a result, the court p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the date of retirement. Due date of release of pension taking the date of the final order in the disciplinary proceeding would be 17.04.2019 or before that, it is on record and not disputed by anyone, the payment has been made much before that date. As such the statutory interest as prescribed under the CCS (Pension) Rules cannot be saddled on the respondents. In respect of the payment of GPF, leave encashment, the petitioner's grievance is also unsustainable considering the context. The petitioner should realize the legal impediment that came in the way of such release. [13] Mr. Majumder, learned ASG has submitted that no damage can be assessed by this court in view of the probable and manifest 'blemish' against the petitioner. Such '....