UNION OF INDIA Vs. C.P. PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CALLING in question tenability of an order dated 26th February, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, in O.A. No. 49/2013, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Union of India.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent, we find that the respondent Shri C.P. Pandey was working in the postal department and while working as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ujjain Division in the year 2010 he is said to have committed certain irregularities in the matter of appointment of various group B Post i.e. Gramin Dak Sevak . Be that as it may be proceedings were to be initiated against him but in the meanwhile he sought voluntary retirement and he was directed to retire on 24/07/2012. when his retiral claims were not being paid he initiated proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Union of India came out with a justification to say that as departmental proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 is apprehended against the petitioner and therefore, his pensionary benefits are being withheld as the matter was taken up for institution of departmental proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with the sanction of the President of India. The tribunal found that no departmental proceedings were initiated, no charge -sheet was issued when the employee was in service and now the departmental proceedings can be initiated only after approval of the President of India, no approval has been obtained, therefore, the petition has been allowed by the tribunal and pensionary benefits are directed to be settled with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 25/01/2013 till payment. Contending that the process for obtaining permission from the President of India is still going and until and unless final decision is not taken full pension cannot be granted only provisional pension can be fixed, this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal has been filed by the department.

(3.) SHRI Vijay Tripathi, refuted the aforesaid argued that until and unless the departmental proceedings are initiated after due approval of the President of India as contemplated under Rule 9 of Pension Rules, petitioners have no right to withhold the pension of the respondent employee.