STATE OF U P Vs. PASHUPATI NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pashupati Nath Singh, the respondent present in person.

(2.) THIS writ petition filed by the State of U.P. is directed against the order dated 08.08.2014, as passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 129 of 2010 whereby, the interest claimed on delayed payment of pensionary benefits has been allowed by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% p.a. except that on medical reimbursement.

(3.) THE relief granted by the Tribunal proceeds in the background of facts, which in nutshell may be summarised as follows: The respondent No. 1 (claimant before the Tribunal) retired from service while holding the post of Chief Engineer on 31.01.2009. However, before his retirement, on 23.12.2008, the respondent No. 1 was sought to be proceeded against departmentally. The substance of the allegations against the respondent No. 1 had been that in relation to a particular road work, earlier in a report of Technical Committee, of which he was the Chairperson, nothing of deductions was suggested but thereafter, in his letter dated 15.10.2007, deduction of Rs. 30.20 lacs was suggested; and thereafter, in another letter dated 25.10.2008, such a proposition for deduction was reduced to Rs. 28.53 lacs. It was alleged that such different proposals at different stages created doubts. It was also alleged that because of his faults, a claim of Rs. 51.52 lacs could not be forwarded to the World Bank. After the respondent No. 1 having retired, the proceedings were permitted under Clause 351 -A of Civil Services Regulations. However, ultimately, such disciplinary proceedings terminated with the essential finding that it had not been a case of the respondent No. 1 having caused pecuniary loss to the Government; and rather, the responsibility of the Superintending Engineer was indicated. It was held that at the most, the respondent No. 1 could be held responsible for not carrying out of his supervisory duties, but the charges were held not proved and he was exonerated. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent No. 1 culminated into his exoneration, but resulted in a delay of about six months in the payment of his retiral dues in respect of which, claim of interest was levied before the Tribunal by means of Claim Petition No. 129 of 2010.