GULZAR SINGH KHOKHAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired from service on 30th June, 1988 while holding the post of Chief Accounts Officer. After retirement he was paid all post-retiral dues except the amount of gratuity. Petitioner made several representations to the respondents for release of his gratuity but he remained unsuccessful in persuading the authorities of the department to release the gratuity. Having failed in his attempt to get relief from the administrative authorities, he filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to pay him the amount of gratuity (Rs. 50,000) along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) Respondents have justified the withholding of the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the ground that a case under under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been registered against the petitioner and one Shri O.P. Bhagat. They have further stated that in more than one case Vigilance Enquiries were pending against the petitioner and due to pendency of the criminal case and the Vigilance Enquiries, the Government had withheld the amount of gratuity. Respondents have also stated that a huge amount running into thousands of rupees were recoverable from the petitioner, and in order to protect P-2 the public interest, the Government had withheld the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner.

(3.) Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the First Information Report of which reference has been made by the respondents was subsequently filed and no departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970, till the date of his retirement and, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to withhold the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner on the date of his retirement. He also pointed out that by an order dated 20th December, 1991, Shri O.P. Bhagat who was arrayed as a co- delinquent with the petitioner in one of the vigilance cases has been punished with a penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,000/- but no case has been instituted against the petitioner. He also invited my attention towards Annexure P-6 dated 10.8.1992 whereby the Government decided not to institute an enquiry against the petitioner in the light of prohibition contained in Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II.