UNION OF INDIA v. SRI. B.S CHANDRAMOHAN

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY.H, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. B.S CHANDRAMOHAN S/O B.V SHREEDHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SWASTIK', …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29783-DB WP No. 1172 of 2024 APPAIAH SWAMY ROAD, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT, PIN:571 218. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE CAT, BANGALORE, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21-08-2023 AT ANNEXURE-A MADE IN O.A. No. 170/00224/2022 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated

21.08.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal O.A.No.170/00224/2024, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent by stating as under: "ORDER 1) The respondents are directed to pay the prevailing rate of GPF interest to the applicant on the amount Rs.5,28,876/- towards EL encashment paid belatedly, from 04.03.2015 i.e. 26.05.2023. of Rs.8,87,436/-towards Gratuity the date of payment - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29783-DB WP No. 1172 of 2024 2) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 3) With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands disposed of. 4) No order as to costs."

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has erred in granting the interest on the monetary benefits with effect from 04.03.2015, as according to him, the proceedings continued/pending till

29.09.2022, when the Ministry of Finance passed order exonerating the respondent herein and as such, the Tribunal could not have granted the interest. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that, the Tribunal, while granting the interest has in paragraphs 8 and 9, stated as under: "8. In the background of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, now the controversy rests upon the entitlement of the applicant for interest on the belated payment of terminal benefits.

9. It is true that subsequent to quashing of the charge memo by this Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 04.03.2014 was pleased to reverse the said decision, reserved liberty to the respondents to proceed with the inquiry in pursuant to the charge memo dated 16.06.2006. Six months' time was granted to proceed with the inquiry and take action in accordance with law. Though the Inquiry Officer submitted the report, that only one charge among the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29783-DB WP No. 1172 of 2024 the withheld terminal benefits of three charges were sustainable, the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer reversed the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer relating to charge No.2, in which the Inquiry Officer had held the applicant to be guilty. The said disagreement order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority ought to have been considered for releasing applicant. Even if any second stage advice was required, the same would have been taken well within a reasonable period of time. For the reasons best known to the respondents, proceedings were initiated for taking second stage advice only on 04.10.2017 and such an advice was given on 16.02.2018 by the concerned authority. The gist of the second stage advice for dropping of the major penalty proceedings initiated against the applicant were also not properly considered within a reasonable time. Despite the time frame of six months fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for conducting the inquiry proceedings and to take action against the applicant in terms of charge memo dated 16.06.2006, the Inquiry Report was submitted on 12.02.2015. The disagreement order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 03.03.2015 also has not been given effect, immediately. The withheld amount has been released to the applicant in terms of the order dated 26.05.2023. The applicant's withheld terminal benefits, at least immediately after the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 03.03.2015, would have been released. The applicant has been made to suffer by the inaction of the respondents for which he has to be compensated by awarding interest. Hence, we pass the following: "1) The respondent are directed to pay the prevailing rate of GPF interest to the applicant on the amount of Rs.8,87,436/- towards Gratuity and Rs.5,28,876/- towards EL encashment paid belatedly, from 04.03.2015 i.e. 26.05.2023. the date of payment 2) Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified coy of this order. 3) With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands disposed of. 4) No order as to costs." - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29783-DB WP No. 1172 of 2024

3. The basis for the Tribunal to grant interest with effect from 04.03.2015 is primarily because the note of disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority is dated 03.03.2015 and the same was not given effect to immediately. Even otherwise, the Ministry of Finance itself has set aside/absolved the respondent of the charges. In the facts of this case, when the respondent has been absolved of all the charges, the respondent cannot be put to loss because of late release of Gratuity and EL encashment. As the only challenge is to the grant of interest by the Tribunal, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30