SAROJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who are son and wife of one Bhim Lal Sahu have approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for release of the maturity amount in Monthly Income Scheme, Recurring Deposit Account, Kisan Vikas Patra and National Saving Certificate which are not being released on account of pendency of a departmental proceeding against the said Bhim Lal Sahu.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner No. 1 who is the son of Bhim Lal Sahu opened a joint account being S.B. A/c No. 90023032 with his father on 09.05.2002 under Monthly Income Scheme at Domchanch Bazar Sub -Post Office and deposited a sum of Rs. 66,000/ -, the maturity date was 09.05.2008. The petitioner No. 1 opened three Recurring Deposit Accounts in the joint name with his mother -petitioner No. 2 and a separate Recurring Deposit Account bearing No. 402506 with his father at Domchanch Bazar, Sub -Post office. The petitioners also purchased Kisan Vikas Patra and National Saving Certificats in their name. The petitioner No. 2 also purchased Kisan Vikas Patra in her name and her husband. The necessary details are furnished by the petitioners in the writ petition. Although, all the deposits matured long back, the petitioners were not permitted to withdraw the maturity amount or even the monthly interest. The reasons disclosed to the petitioners was that a criminal case being Koderma (Domchanch) PS. Case No. 409 of 2003 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. was registered against the Bhim Lal Sahu. The petitioner No. 2 moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4874 of 2006 seeking a direction upon the respondents to allow her to operate her account. The writ petition was disposed of on 11.09.2006 with a direction to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hazaribagh Division to consider her representation and pass a reasoned order. However, by order dated 12.12.2006, the petitioner No. 2 was not permitted to operate her account and therefore, she again moved this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2040 of 2007. Vide order dated 11.08.2009 this Court quashed order dated 12.12.2006 and directed respondent No. 2 to consider the demand of petitioner No. 2 for release of the amount deposited under Monthly Income Schemes. Vide order dated 21.05.2010, the petitioner No. 2 was permitted to operate her Monthly Income Scheme accounts, however, the petitioners were not permitted to withdrew maturity amount from other deposits. In the meantime, Bhim Lal Sahu who was accused of misappropriation of money deposited in the Post Office was acquitted from the criminal charges vide order dated 08.05.2012 in G.R. Case No. 656 of 2003, T.R. No. 46 of 2012. The father of the petitioner No. 1, Bhim Lal Sahu superannuated from service and his retiral benefits which is more than 10 lakhs rupees has not been released by the respondents. The petitioner No. 2 is an old lady aged about 71 years and on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings which was initiated on the eve of the superannuation of her husband from service, i.e. on 31.01.2008 which is still pending, the respondents have denied permission to the petitioners to withdraw their maturity amounts.

(3.) MR . Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that under the provisions of CCSA (Pension) Rules 1972 the respondent -authority can pass an order only with respect to denial of the pension, in part or in full to an employee. Moreover, the proceeding initiated against Bhim Lal Sahu has yet not culminated into award of punishment and therefore, action on the part of the respondents in withholding the amount deposited by the petitioners either in their name or in the joint name with Bhim Lal Sahu is illegal and arbitrary and it cannot be withheld by the respondents.