R.K.Agrawal, J. - (1.) By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Dhukhan Prasad Singh, seeks the following reliefs: (a) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 5(Annexure No. 10) and also the order dated 1.5.2003 (Annexure No. 3) passed by the Respondent No. 2. (b) issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to release the full pension of the petitioner along with the arrears and also release all the retiral benefits including gratuity. (c) issue any other or further Writ, Order or Direction, which the Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner. (d) award the cost of the petition.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 6th July, 1959 in the Railway Mail Service on the post of Mail Man in Gaya Division. He was reitred on 31st July, 2000 from the post of HSG-II SA from the office of HRO, RMS 'C' Division, Gaya. After his retirement the petitioner was not granted full pension nor he was given his post retiral benefits including gratuity and other entitlements. The Senior Superintendent, RMS 'C' Division, Gaya, respondent No. 3, however, vide order dated 5.9.2000 granted provisional pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.8.2000. It is alleged by the petitioner that at the time of his retirement no departmental proceedings, whatsoever, were pending nor any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him after his retirement. The petitioner made several representations for the release of the full amount of retiral benefits, however, no action was taken on them whereafter the petitioner filed Original Application No. 1417 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", which vide order dated 5th December, 2002 directed the authorities concerned to take a final decision on the representations made by the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and to pay his retiral benefits in case there was no impediment under law. Pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal, the Director of Accounts(Postal), Patna-1, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 1st May, 2003 had rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he was facing trial in Case No. 932 of 1992, which is related to his services during his employment with the respondent authorities. The aforesaid case relates to the period when the petitioner was in service and was working at Hazari Bagh Road RMS, when certain insured articles were lost from the custody of the RMS Hazari Bagh for which a First Information Report was lodged at police station Bagapur against six persons including the petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. he was issued a memorandum of charge for imposition of minor penalties under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 along with a statement of imputation to which he submitted his reply in which he had stated that he was not even on duty when the articles were allegedly lost. After a full fledged enquiry, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be held guilty of any misconduct and vide orders dated 13.8.1998 he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him. However, a charge sheet was submitted by the police authorities on 30.11.1994. The trial is still going on, After the rejection of the petitioner's representation vide order dated 1st May, 2003, the petitioner challenged the same by filing Original Application No. 757 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 5th September, 2003. The Tribunal had quashed the orders dated 1st May, 2003 and directed the respondents to release the full pension of the petitioner and also to make payment regarding commutation of pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. The order of the Tribunal dated 5th September 2003 was challenged by the respondent-authorities by means of Writ Petition No.268 of 2004 before this Court and this Court vide judgment and order dated 8th January, 2004 had allowed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner therein had not been given proper opportunity to file counter affidavit and consequently order dated 5th September, 2003 was set aside and the matter was remanded. After the exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2004 had dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, which order is under challenge in the present writ petition. The Tribunal vide impugned order has rejected the claim made by the petitioner on the following ground: Perusal of Rule-9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shows that President has the right of withholding a pension of gratuity or both either in full or in part, whether permanently or for specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the government if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, pensioners is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. This rule makes it clear that if in the judicial proceedings any pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct of negligence during the period of service, President has right to withhold the pension or gratuity or both. He can even order recovery of the amount of pecuniary loss caused to the Government. Therefore, the contention of applicant's counsel that even if applicant is ultimately convicted in the criminal case, department cannot pass any orders against the applicant is not valid, the same is accordingly, rejected.
(3.) The Tribunal was further of the view that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 nowhere says that the departmental or judicial proceedings should be instituted after the retirement as is being read by the counsel for the petitioner.;