UNION OF INDIA Vs. J.P. SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Union of India impugns the judgment 26.2.2003 passed in OA 2154/2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the aforesaid OA filed by the respondent and held that the respondent is entitled to leave encashment and gratuity, while upholding the grant of provisional pension (and not the full pension) to the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent was working as Deputy Director with the Central Water Commission (CWC), a post under the purview of the Ministry of Water Resources. On 26.2.2001, the respondent was suspended by the President of India under Sub -rule (1)(b) of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. This suspension of the respondent was on account of pendency of an investigation in respect of a criminal offence under 120 -B, 420, 468, 477 -A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide RC No. RC -DAI -2001 -A -0016 dated 6.2.2001. While on suspension, the respondent superannuated on 31.3.2002. Vide communication dated 27.3.2002 Senior Accounts Officer to the Under Secretary, Estt.IV CWC granted provisional pension of Rs. 6639/ - per month to the respondent in terms of Rule 69 of the CCS(Pension) Rules 1972 (Pension Rules for short). This provisional pension was stated to be admissible during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to, and including, the date on which after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings final order are passed by the competent authority.

(3.) THE application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was a party to a racket whereunder withdrawal of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs. 23,67,951/ - had irregularly been made between July 1999 and March, 2000. There was large scale embezzlement of Government money in connivance with, inter alia, the respondent. The case was referred to CBI for investigation which had registered the aforesaid FIR, inter alia, against the respondent. The petitioner relied on rules 9 and 69 of the Pension Rules for sanctioning provisional pension. In respect of claim for gratuity, the petitioner asserted that it was a part of pension and could not be paid till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings.