UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. JOYDEV GHATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case would relate to an allegation of illegal gratification for which the respondent was charged with. The facts would depict, the respondent was working as a Railway Inspector while he was charged with the above allegation. The Railway handed over the case to the CBI, who initiated criminal proceeding as against the respondent. The respondent would claim, he was honourably acquitted by the criminal Court. CBI would, however, not agree with such decision and has preferred an appeal being CRA No. 260 of 2007 (CBI v. Joydev Ghatak) that is awaiting disposal before this Court.

(2.) The respondent approached the learned Single Judge for release of the gratuity that the respondent withheld in view of the pendency of the proceeding. Pertinent to note, the railway authorities had initiated the disciplinary proceeding that they subsequently dropped and allowed the respondent to serve the railway till his natural date of superannuation. We are told, after superannuation, he had been paid all retrial benefits except the gratuity for which he approached the learned Single Judge. However, his pension is yet to be finalised as he is now getting provisional pension.

(3.) The learned Judge allowed the writ petition on the plea, the Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a special Act would have predominance over any others general law. Though the Rules 9 and 10 would permit the railway authorities to withhold the gratuity, such rules would not have any effect in view of the said Act, 1972. The learned Single Judge also held, even if the CBI would succeed in their appeal, since there was no loss caused to the railway so proved, the provisions of Section 4(6) would not debar the respondent from receiving the gratuity.