it2025_00334 — A charge-sheeted employee under suspension is to be paid Subsistence Allowance and grant of pension and pensionary benefits after the date of retirement, if no order of removal / dismissal exists till the date when the employee reached the age of superannuation

A charge-sheeted employee under suspension is to be paid Subsistence Allowance and grant of pension and pensionary benefits after the date of retirement, if no order of removal / dismissal exists till the date when the employee reached the age of superannuation — Case involving employee's claim for Subsistence Allowance and pension upon reaching retirement age despite being charge-sheeted under suspension, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the employee due... — Facts : The Applicant, presently aged 65 years was charge-sheeted on 10-6-2005 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After holding the enquiry which held that the charges are proved, he was imposed the punishment of removal from service by Order, dated 15-9-2006. Number of times the punishment orders were set aside which are not necessary to write in this short analysis of this case. The case was going up and down due to Tribunal's order for reconsideration each time setting aside the punishment awarded. The short reason for issuing the charge-sheet is that, he committed permanent fraud of ₹ 2,39,274 while working as P.A., Dhenkanal RS Sub-Post Office and temporary fraud of ₹ 57,550 in RD deposits and RD withdrawals in the said RS Post Office. The Applicant states that he had not received dues, i.e. Subsistence Allowance and pension and pensionary benefits. He filed this OA for those claims. As stated earlier, the punishment awarded to the Applicant earlier was set aside by approaching Tribunal. Even then the Respondents repeated the punishment as stated above. Hence he filed this OA. The Tribunal, while disposing of this case took note of Apex Court judgments. In the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another [ AIR 1960 SC 941 ] explained the scope of principle of res judicata as the Respondents raised this issue in their affidavit. The relevant remarks in that case is that, "When a matter - whether on a question of fact or question of law - has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again". Further, it was said that "the result of this is that, original Court as well as higher Court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was correct". Similar view was expressed in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another [ AIR 2005 SC 626 ]. In the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and another [ 1999 (5) SCC 590 ], the Apex Court explained the scope of finality of the judgment. It was observed that "when the proceedings have attained finality, parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it". In the case of Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab and others [ AIR 1975 SC 984 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance in the case of Vitaralli v. Seaton [ 359 US 536 ], considered the scope of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and observed that the scope of those Articles is wide and pervasive as those Articles embodied the principle of rationality and they are intended to strike against arbitrary and discriminatory action taken by the executives. In the case of Union of India v. K.M. Sankarappa [ 2001 (1) SCC 582 ], the Apex Court deprecated the practice of interfering by the executives without challenging the Court order before the superior forum. The relevant portion as above is extracted in the judgment. After analyzing the case with the help of the earlier Apex Court judgments noted above, it was said that "it is not permissible for the Respondents not to release Subsistence Allowance 10-6-2011 to 31-7-2011 and grant pension after retirement, if no such order of dismissal / removal exists. Further, based on facts of the case, the present case is a clear cut case of legal malice. In the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalanath Narichania and others [ AIR 2010 SC 3475 ], it was said that "conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, which intent is manifested by its injurious acts. Passing an order for an unauthorized purpose constitutes malice in law".