- (1.) The petitioners have challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench by which the Tribunal has directed the petitioners and Respondent no. 3 that is the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Personnel and Training New Delhi to pay Respondent no. 1 his retiral dues in accordance with the rules within a period of three months from the date of the order. The respondent was employed as an Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), West Bengal that is Petitioner no. 2. He retired as an auditor on 31st January 2010, after forty years of service. Respondent no. 1 was suspended during the period from 13th March 1999 to 16th July 2002 in connection with a Criminal Case No. CPS 90 dated 19th March 2009. He was charged under Sections 498A, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 1 was permitted to join duty later and his period of suspension was regularised. There is no dispute that the Respondents No. 1 was in custody for four days, from 13th to 17th March 1999.
(2.) The respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal contending that he should be paid gratuity on his retirement as the criminal case against him had not proceeded although ten years had elapsed. The respondent no. 1 contended that he was entitled to full pension and not provisional pension which had been granted to him on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against him.
(3.) The Tribunal has not accepted these contentions of the petitioners for several reasons. It has observed that there was no disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the respondent No. 1 although the retiral benefits had been withheld on the ground that the criminal case of the year 1999 was still pending against respondent no. 1. The Tribunal has observed that no charge sheet had been filed despite the passage of ten years. It has noted that no allegations involving any financial loss had been made against the respondent no. 1 for which a disciplinary proceeding was pending. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the retiral benefits should be paid to the respondent no. 1 immediately.;