UNION OF INDIA, REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Vs. P V BALASUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein was appointed as Assistant Enforcement Officer in the Directorate of Enforcement on 15.06.1974 and was promoted as Enforcement Officer in 1982 on ad hoc basis and on regular basis with effect from 1986. Alleging that during a search conducted by the Officers of Enforcement, Hyderabad in 1994, it has been revealed that the Enforcement Officers including the first respondent herein had received Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification from the accused in the FERA case, the first respondent was issued with charge memo dated 13.09.1998 and an enquiry was conducted in which it was found that the charges were not proved. But, the second appellant, the disciplinary authority, disagreed with the Enquiry Officer's Report, for which the first respondent submitted a detailed representation on 16.06.2004. Thereafter, there was no communication for a period of two years and the charges were dropped. In these circumstances, another charge memo dated 14.08.2006 was issued, which contained the same charges. The said charge memo was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.789 of 2006 and the Tribunal quashed the charge memo by order dated 07.06.2007. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Disciplinary Authority before this Court in W.P.Nos.24958 and 25097 of 2009 and the same were dismissed, against which an SLP was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.30138 of 2011 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.04.2013 with liberty to proceed further with the departmental enquiry. The first respondent also got retired on 31.08.2009. Even though provisional pension has been granted to him, no other retiral benefits such as gratuity were granted. The first respondent, in the mean while, also got acquitted in the criminal case, by order dated 09.04.2014 in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. In these circumstances, the first respondent submitted a representation to the second appellant on 22.04.2014 and the same was rejected on 03.07.2014.

(2.) With the above background, the first respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.310/01763/2014 to quash the order dated 03.07.2014 rejecting his representation and for a direction to pay all retiral benefits to him including gratuity, regular pension and benefit of commutation of pension together with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 31.08.2009 with arrears of pension and all other consequential benefits. The Tribunal, rejected the original application by order dated 06.04.2017 with a direction to settle all retiral benefits as prayed for by the first respondent, within a period of two months.

(3.) Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have now come up with this writ petition.