MOHD ABDUL SAEED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 11. 4. 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in Original application No. 751/2007.

(2.) THE facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 stating, inter alia, that though he had been superannuated on 31. 12. 2006 the amount of gratuity has been withheld by the employer solely on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 120-B and 209 of the Indian Penal Code and the said withholding was done under Rule 9 (3) of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. It was contended before the tribunal that the Ralilways could not have withheld the gratuity solely on the base that a criminal case was pending unless the petitioner, a pensioner, was found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. It was urged that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was not found guilty in any departmental or judicial proceeding and, therefore, withholding of gratuity was unjustified. On the said backdrop a prayer was made to command the respondents to release the amount of gratuity.

(3.) THE Railway Administration resisted the prayer of the petitioner contending, inter alia, that the gratuity has been withheld as a criminal case has been instituted against the petitioner and the controversy in the same has not yet attained finality. It was also put forth that if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case the gratuity would be released.