B M SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether or not there could be a direction as sought for by the petitioner herein for payment of interest on the retiral benefits, which were paid by the respondents to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, while working as an Assistant Engineer, which is a Group 'B' post, retired from service with effect from 31.5.1995. However, prior to his retirement, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29.7.1994 for major penalty. The said departmental proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner prior to his retirement, was continued even after his retirement and the same was completed some time in the month of September 1995. However, no decision was taken on the said disciplinary proceeding consequent to which the petitioner herein filed a petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and for direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits, which were withheld . The said original petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal was disposed of by judgment dated 15.10.1996 by issuing a direction to the respondents to pass final order in respect of the disciplinary proceeding within three months. The respondents proceeded to pass a final order in the disciplinary proceeding on 5.12.1996 whereby the charges levelled against the petitioner were dropped and instructions were issued to the respondent No.3 to pay the settlement dues of the petitioner. In the petition filed on 4.2.1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal a grievance was raised by the petitioner that despite the fact that he retired from service on 31.5.1995 and that even though the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped and the charges levelled against the petitioner had been dropped by order passed on 5.12.1996, some of his retiral benefits amounting to Rs.3 lakhs have not been paid.

(3.) The aforesaid grievance of the petitioner was considered by the learned Tribunal in the light of the records. It was, however, found by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner, while filing the original application, did not come to the court with clean hands. It was also found that the the petitioner suppressed material facts, which were required to be disclosed. The Tribunal also found that the dues stood paid to the petitioner prior to filing of the petition and the only issue that remained to be considered was in respect of payment of interest, which the learned Central Administrative Tribunal declined to award in favour of the petitioner because of his conduct and because he concealed material facts. The said order is under challenge in this petition.