R LAKSHMIKANTHAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant 12% interest for the delayed payment of retirement benefits viz. , death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, commuted value of pension and arrears of pension from 31. 3. 1992 till 6. 8. 2002.

(2.) THE necessary facts for disposal of this writ petition are as follows, (a) The petitioner retired as a Block Development Officer on 31. 3. 19 92 on attaining the age of superannuation. On the date of retirement, he was working at the Polur Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai District. On 28. 12. 1991, the District Collector, Tiruvannamalai/second respondent herein framed certain charges against the petitioner under Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, relating to the discharge of petitioner's duty while he was working as Block Development Officer, thurinjapuram Panchayat Union. The Charge mainly deals with non-entry of 26. 680 MT of rice in the stock register, causing loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 53,138/ -. Consequential charge was also framed for non-appointment of Manager ( RLEGP), when the then manager Venkatasubramaniam was on medical leave, to hold additional charges, thus giving opportunity for non-entry of the incoming rice stocks in the stock register. On 21. 1. 1992, petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charges levelled against him. (b) The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai/second respondent appointed the District Town Panchayat Officer, Tiruvannamalai as Enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 10. 2. 1992. As the petitioner's date of retirement fell on 31. 3. 1992, the Director of Rural development, by his order dated 26. 3. 1992, permitted the petitioner to retire from services on 31. 3. 1992, but without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under the charge memo dated 28. 12. 1992. Accordingly the petitioner retired on 31. 3. 1992. (c) On 23. 5. 1992, the Principal Accountant General, Tamil Nadu sanctioned Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity of Rs. 42,884/- and commuted value of 1/3rd pension of Rs. 54,225/-, but however, with a direction to disburse the said amounts after finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. (d) The disciplinary proceeding was kept pending for more than seven years and on 7. 12. 1999, the Secretary to Rural Development department/the first respondent herein furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and asked for his written representation, which the petitioner offered on 8. 1. 1999. On 14. 7. 2000, the first respondent issued a show cause notice conveying the provisional conclusion to the effect of reduction of Rs. 100/- per month for a period of three years from the pension payable to the petitioner, besides recovering a sum of Rs. 1,32,585/- from the retirement benefits. On 13. 8. 2000, the petitioner replied that the provisional conclusion arrived at to recover a sum of Rs. 1,32,585/- is excessive since the actual loss is only to the tune of Rs. 53,138/-, even as per the charge memo. Thereafter petitioner received another letter dated 14. 7. 2000 asking him to show cause against the provisional conclusion to the effect of reduction of Rs. 100/- per month for a period of three years from the pension payable to the petitioner, besides recovering a sum of Rs. 13,285/-from DCRG. For the said show cause notice, petitioner sent his reply on 18. 10. 2000 stating that the provisional conclusion amounts to imposing double punishment inasmuch as there is a cut in pension, as well as recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,285/ -. Subsequently, on 12. 12. 2000, the first respondent issued another letter asking the petitioner to state as to whether he admits the proposed penalty or to offer his reply. For that letter also petitioner sent a reply on 8. 1. 2001 stating that the provisional conclusion arrived at amounts to double punishment and expressed his willingness to pay a sum of rs. 13,285/ -. (e) It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the above replies sent by him, the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceeding and hence he filed O. A. No. 519 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under charge memo dated 28. 12. 1991. The Tribunal by order dated 9. 2. 2002 directed the respondents to pass final orders in the disciplinary proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of copy of that order. As the said order was not complied with, petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 193 of 2002, and during pendency of the said contempt application, first respondent passed an order imposing punishment of reduction of Rs. 100/- per month for a period of three years from the pension payable to the petitioner, besides recovery of rs. 13,285/- from the DCRG payable to the petitioner, to make good the loss caused to the Government. (f) It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation as early as on 31. 3. 1992, but in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on 28. 12. 1991, though enquiry was completed and enquiry report was submitted on 10. 2. 1992 to the disciplinary authority, much prior to the date of retirement, for no fault of the petitioner, the proceeding was kept pending for more than ten years and only after filing contempt application for the disobedience of the direction of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 9. 2. 2002 in O. A. No. 519 of 2002, final orders were passed in the disciplinary proceeding. In these circumstances, petitioner prays for grant of 12% interest for the delayed payment of retirement benefits from 31. 3. 2002 to 6. 8. 2002.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that though the Accountant General, Chennai had sanctioned pension, death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, etc. , in the release order it is mentioned that the amount will be disbursed only after the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore it cannot be termed as delayed payment as the same was held up only due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. It is further stated that under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, no interest shall be payable in cases where the delay in the payment of Death-cum-Retirement gratuity is due to the institution of departmental or judicial proceedings against the Government servant concerned. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim interest for the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement gratuity amount.