R.P. TAK Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

(2.) The facts as averred by the petitioner in the writ petition are, he joined the respondent no. 2 as Director (Finance) on January 4, 2006. On November 26, 2010, he was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director in terms of the procedure followed by the Government of India through PESB. On September 30, 2014, the petitioner superannuated from service but his retiral dues were not released on the ground of pendency of vigilance clearance from respondent no.1 which according to him is in clear violation of applicable Rule 30A of Cement Corporation of India Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. It is averred that respondent no.2 vide its communication dated September 10, 2015 to the Department of Public Enterprise requesting therein to list out/earmark the name of the petitioner for not considering him to the post of non-official Director on the Board of any CPSE. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10041/2015 on October 16, 2015. On October 28, 2015, this Court had passed the order in the said Writ Petition directing the respondent no.2 to treat the Writ Petition as a representation and decide it within a period of six weeks by passing a speaking order and if need be, the petitioner be call for clarification. It is averred that on December 10, 2015 respondent no.2 passed an order reiterating the petitioner's retiral dues have been withheld on the ground of pendency of vigilance clearance. On February 9, 2016, respondent no.1 also passed an order reiterating that the impugned order was passed on the advice and opinion of CVC.

(3.) It is contended by Ms. Anju Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned orders with regard to stoppage of retiral dues and the exclusion of the petitioner from the panel for consideration as Independent Director on the Board of CPSE is legally untenable. She qualifies her submission by stating that, in so far as the retiral dues are concerned, the petitioner having retired and as no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated before retirement, respondent no. 2 could not have withheld the same. On the aspect of the exclusion of the petitioner from the panel for consideration as Independent Director is concerned, the same being on the advice of the CVC, such an order could not have been passed without supplying the petitioner a copy of the advice of the CVC. She also state that action against the petitioner being complete and final with the issuance of order dated July 17, 2015 by the respondent no.1 whereby the competent authority has conveyed displeasure to the petitioner for the irregularities alleged to have been committed, nothing further required to be done nor is permissible in law, the respondents could not have withheld the retiral benefits. She would also refer to an amendment brought to Rule 30A of CCI Limited Conduct, Disciplinary and Appeal Rules in the following manner: