More than three decades after a Zonal Taxation Officer retired from service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that he was subjected to harassment by keeping disciplinary proceedings pending for years, depriving him of his retirement benefits and leaving the proceedings hanging over his head “like the sword of Damocles”.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar minced no words to say that the petitioner-employee was harassed prima facie due to personal vendetta before directing the release of all pending retirement benefits within two months, along with 6 per cent annual interest from the date charge sheets were quashed till actual realization. The Court also ordered refund of rent deducted in contravention of an earlier order, besides Rs 5,74,840 deducted from the petitioner’s pension towards adjustment of temporary advances.
At the onset, Justice Brar asserted that the petitioner had been “running from pillar to post for grant of his retirement benefits in its entirety since his very retirement on June 30, 1993.”
Justice Brar also took note of the stand taken by Faridabad Municipal Corporation and another respondent that the retirement benefits had been withheld because disciplinary proceedings against him were pending.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Raman B. Garg, Mayank Garg and Komal Parveen Singh. The Court noted that the Corporation claimed two charge sheets issued to the petitioner had been clubbed as they related to the same allegations, but made no mention of an independent inquiry also initiated against him. It further noted that a vigilance inquiry on the allegations resulted in registration of an FIR, in which the petitioner was acquitted.
The Bench observed that departmental proceedings could continue independently of criminal proceedings, but the manner in which the proceedings were allowed to continue was inexplicable.
“While the departmental proceedings can continue independent of criminal proceedings, it is baffling as to how these disciplinary proceedings were kept hanging upon the head of the petitioner, a man in his sunset years, like the sword of Damocles. In doing so, not only was the petitioner subjected to mental harassment but he was also deprived of his statutory right to retirement benefits. More so, these disciplinary proceedings never attained finality even after a decade since their initiation,” the Court observed.
The judgment noted that the petitioner was forced to approach the High Court by filing the petition, in which both charge sheets were quashed on September 15, 2003, owing to the substantial delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Justice Brar further noted that the respondent-Corporation, in purported compliance with the judgment, released two-thirds of the petitioner’s pension, leave and gratuity, respectively. The remaining one-third of the retirement benefits was withheld on the ground that temporary advances granted in the petitioner’s name had not been adjusted.
However, the Court found that the record did not support that stand. Referring to a letter dated May 4, 2000, the Bench noted that the relevant officer of the Accounts Department had admitted that no amount remained outstanding against the petitioner. It also referred to communications dated September 25, 2003, from the office of the Commissioner and October 15, 2003, from the Joint Director (Audit), indicating that the retirement benefits were withheld only because of paper formalities.
The Court observed that the authorities were aware that the petitioner’s retirement dues had remained pending for an inordinately long period, but made no substantial effort to expedite the process. It also accepted the petitioner’s contention that the Accounts Department was the official custodian of the Corporation’s records. Yet, the Corporation assumed no responsibility for processing pensionary claims of retired employees in a timely manner.
The Bench observed that the administrative apathy was so pervasive that despite a legal battle lasting decades, the petitioner was made to submit an undertaking dated September 8, 2015, agreeing that the outstanding amount could be deducted from his pension if the adjustments were not cleared within six months, even though he was the one deprived of his legal entitlements.
The Court further noted that when the adjustments were not approved within the stipulated period, the petitioner’s pension was stopped from June 2016. It was resumed only in March 2018, after he requested the Corporation through a letter dated January 24, 2018, to deduct Rs 5,74,840, shown as pending due to non-adjustment of temporary advances, so that his monthly pension could be restored.
Rejecting the respondent-Corporation’s reliance on the Civil Service Rules, the Court held that pension and gratuity could be withheld only if the retiree was found guilty of misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case, while the departmental proceedings remained stuck at the stage of inquiry for decades before the charge sheets were quashed. It also recorded that no charge sheet was ever issued to the petitioner regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds with respect to the temporary advances.
“As such, a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct or that he had caused pecuniary loss to his employer was never recorded in any official document pertaining to disciplinary action,” the Court held.
Justice Brar added: “This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment by the respondent-Corporation, prima facie due to personal vendetta. The conduct of the respondents has caused significant civil consequences to the petitioner as his retirement benefits were released in a painfully delayed fashion and without abiding by the principles of natural justice.”
The Court also dealt with deductions towards rent despite an order dated August 23, 1974, under which the petitioner had been allotted residential accommodation “free of rent” in lieu of stoppage of a special allowance. Rejecting the Corporation’s stand that the order could not be implemented because of an audit objection, the Bench observed that nothing had been placed on record to show that any competent authority had passed an order to that effect or that the petitioner had ever been informed.
“The respondents are not at liberty to change its own orders per convenience without providing reasons justifying the same and providing the affected employee an opportunity to be heard,” the Court held.
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the respondents to release all pending retirement benefits within two months, together with 6 per cent annual interest from the date of quashing of the charge sheets till actual realisation. It also directed refund of the rent deducted in contravention of the order dated August 23, 1974, along with Rs 5,74,840 deducted from the petitioner’s pension towards adjustment of temporary advances.