MANOHAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 19.4.2004 (Annexure P-5) by which the respondents have withheld the gratuity of the petitioner and other pensionary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to release the retiral benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement till payment. The petitioner joined the service of Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 9.12.1966 as a Lower Division Clerk. On 11.11.1989, he was promoted as Cashier. He retired from service on 31.5.2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The Board had partly released the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, but withheld the amount of gratuity. The petitioner claims that at the time of superannuation, no enquiry/charge- sheet was pending against him. The pension of the petitioner has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 4,278/- + Dearness Relief fixed from time to time per month. The petitioner made a number of requests to the Board for release of the gratuity. Since the respondents failed to pass any order, he served a legal notice on the Board. When no response was received to the legal notice, the petitioner filed CWP No. 19496 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2003. A direction was issued to the Board to treat the legal notice as a representation and to take a decision on the same within four months from the date that a certified copy of the order is received by them. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Board has passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2004 (Annexure P-5). It is stated that the petitioner had embezzled a sum of Rs. 3,018/-, on the basis of which a criminal case has been registered against him. Therefore, the decision with regard to payment of gratuity will be taken after the decision of the Court. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he was issued charge-sheet No. 109 dated . 19.3.1998 for the alleged embezzlement of Rs. 3,018/- and temporary embezzlement of Rs. 8,500/-. The FIR also relates to the same amount. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet. After taking into consideration the reply, the respondents have passed an order on 16.11.2000 by which the petitioner had been held guilty of temporary embezzlement of Rs. 8,500/- as he did not place the same in the chest during the period 6.5.1997 to 16.5.1997. Taking a lenient view, the Board had stopped one increment of the petitioner without future effect. The amount of Rs. 3,018/- alleged to have been embezzled by the petitioner has been deposited with the Board vide RO 4 on 17.5.1999. The petitioner was also issued Charge-sheet No. 174 dated 4.10.1999 for alleged embezzlement which had been detected by special audit, due to non-posting/partial posting of RO4/stubs in the CCR books. For the aforesaid alleged misconduct, two increments of the petitioner were stopped without future effect vide order dated 26.8.2002.