No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court

No Employee Should Be Retired With Pending Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Compelling Circumstances/Very Serious Charges: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal 8 Jan 2025 10:35 AM 

While granting interest on delayed payment of post-retiral dues to a Nagar Palika employee, the Allahabad High Court observed that unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Imposing cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor for delaying the payment of retirement dues of the employee despite no conclusive charges against him, Justice JJMunir held 

"No employee should be allowed to retire, with disciplinary proceedings pending against him, unless these are commenced virtually on the eve of his retirement, for very compelling reasons, or the charges are so serious and facts so complicated that the process of inquiry would certainly extend beyond the employee's superannuation.” The Court took note of the affidavit of the Commissioner, wherein the delay in disbursing the post retirement benefits could be seen as 2 years Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika nor the Commissioner of the Division spared a thought to it, because, obviously, they were not suffering the predicament. It was the petitioner. Factual Background Petitioner, born on 01.06.1959, was a Revenue Moharir in the employ of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor. After that, on 15.02.1977, he was appointed a Naib Moharir with the Nagar Palika for a period of 2 months on temporary basis. Again on 14.04.1977, the petitioner was appointed to work as Naib Moharir for 2 months, which was extended till December, 1977. Subsequently, the petitioner was regularized wef 01.06.1982. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he was appointed before attaining majority. 

Upon inquiry in 2018, it was found that at the time of his first appointment as Naib Moharir, the petitioner was aged 17 years 8 months and 14 days. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended by the Executive Officer. Inquiry report was submitted on 18.01.2019. Since the petitioner was set to retire on 31.05.2019, he moved an application to the Executive Officer to take action in the pending disciplinary proceedings. After his retirement, the petitioner approached the officers for release of his post-retirement dues, however, no action was taken.

The Writ Court ordered that the disbursal of retirement dues shall be based on the outcome of disciplinary proceedings which shall be done within a month. Since the order of the writ Court was not complied with, the petitioner filed a Contempt Application wherein another opportunity was granted to the Authorities to comply with the writ Court order.

Certain amounts were released to the petitioner, however, due to non-payment of the remaining amount the petitioner filed a complaint on the Chief Minister's jansunwai portal. The complaint by the petitioner was closed stating that leave encashment dues were paid, other post withdrawal dues were delayed due to overload on the department.

After another complaint and a second contempt application, the petitioner approached the Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Nagar Palika for payment of interest on delay payment of arrears. The application by the petitioner was rejected, consequently, he approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that once the employee is placed under suspension, pending disciplinary inquiry and is set to retire soon, it is upon the employer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings before the retirement. It was held that the suspension was lifted after his retirement upon severing the employer-employee relationship.

The Court observed that once the decision was taken to pay the petitioner his entire post-retiral dues, it meant that he was exonerated of charges. It was observed that the inquiry report exonerating the petitioner or holding him guilty was never placed before the Court.

Further, the Court observed that the stand taken by the Commissioner of the Division as well as the Deputy Director, Local Fund Accounts Department, UP, Moradabad in their affidavits filed before the Court was very insensitive.

Observing that the inquiry against the employee on the verge of retirement ought to have been conducted swiftly, the Court held that

“It took the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika and the Commissioner as well, the nudge of a writ of this Court to galvanize them. into action, conclude the inquiry after the petitioner's retirement and based on findings, reach a decision on 21.09.2019, when the inquiry report was submitted that after all, the petitioner's post-retiral benefits had to be paid in full. Why this was not done before the petitioner's retirement, as already said, is thought both by the Executive Officer and the Commissioner of the Division something so trivial as not to beg an answer.”

The Court held that once the statutory authority for disbursal of the dues was the Commissioner, the file of the petitioner ought not to have been sent to the District Magistrate, Bijnor. It was noted that this added to further delay in the proceedings. Noting that there was a delay of upto 3 years in disbursing all retirement dues, the petitioner was entitled to interest of the delayed payment.

The Court relied on State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, where the Supreme Court upheld the levy of interest on the State Government for delayed payment of retirement dues due to neglect on their part.

Further reliance was placed on Smt. Nazma Khatoon v. State of UP and others where the Allahabad High Court imposed 8% interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The bench therein had held that “Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that interest is a necessary corollary to the retention of money by another person. It is neither compensatory nor penal in nature and in that regard matter has been adjudicated upon by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ranjana Kakar Vs. State of UP and others reported in 2008(10)ADJ 63(DB).”

Justice Munir held that the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court did not influence the authorities and penalty in such cases is necessary.

Accordingly, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor and directed payment of 6% simple interest on delayed payment of post retirement dues from 2019.

Case Title: Pramod Kumar v. State of UP and Others [WRIT - A NO. 16300 OF 2024]