Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1980 of 2008
PETITIONER:
B.S.N.L. & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Rajesh Kumar Saxena
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2008
BENCH:
TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1980 OF 2008
(arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 3643 of 2007)
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by way of special leave is based on the
following facts.
3. The respondent Rajesh Kumar Saxena was placed under
suspension vide order dated 26th June, 2004 under sub-rule(1)
of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules 1965 on the allegation that while working
as an Officiating Chief Accounts Officer in Moradabad in the
year 2003, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and
shown lack of devotion to duty. The appellant however
attained the age of superannuation during his suspension and
was retired provisionally on 31st July, 2004 as per order
Annexure P-2, with the stipulation that as per the Central
Civil Services Rules (Pension Rules) 1972 the payments due to
him would be made on finalization of the disciplinary
proceedings. The order dated 26th June, 2004 was challenged
before the Allahabad High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The
Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 23rd
November, 2006 held that as the charge sheet had been served
on the appellant more than one year after his retirement, the
proceedings against him were nonest and that as suspension
itself was not a punishment and that in any case, it would
’evaporate’ on his superannuation, there was no justification
in withholding the retirement benefits such as pension,
provident fund, leave salary, group insurance, CDS amount
etc. and a direction was issued to make all payments within a
period of two months from the date of communication of the
order. It is in this circumstance, the present appeal is before
us by way of special leave at the instance of the department.
4. Several arguments have been raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant during the course of the hearing and
reference has been made to various rules. Special reference
has however been laid on the fact that very serious allegations
of misconduct on the part of the respondent and 30 other
departmental officers who too had been suspended had been
revealed during investigation.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has however
pointed out that the question as to whether initiation of
proceedings could or could not be made after the retirement of
the respondent and as to whether the chargesheet had been
served within the requisite period had been raised in this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
appeal and which needed to be answered before a reversal of
the High Court’s judgment. We are however of the opinion that
at this stage we are not called upon to go through these issues
as to do so could have the effect of damaging the cause of one
or the other party in the departmental proceedings that are
presently going on and in particular, those amongst the
suspended officials who are not before us in this matter. We
are accordingly of the opinion that as per the rules, the
respondent would be entitled to the payment of provisional
pension and to the release of his provident fund alone and he
would have to await the decision on the enquiry before the
release of the other retiral benefits. We also make it clear that
as we have not dealt with the basic legal issues raised by the
parties, they would be at liberty to raise them at any
subsequent stage should the need so arises. We allow the
appeal to the above extent. The order of the High Court shall
be deemed to be modified in the above terms.