Post-superannuation challenge to dismissal fails; retiral benefits may be pursued only upon acquittal.

The applicant, a postal employee, was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalpaiguri Division, by order dated 20.12.2021 for alleged involvement in a fraud amounting to approximately ₹2,20,92,766 at Chamurchi Sub-Office.

He challenged the dismissal before the appellate authority on 07.02.2022; the Postmaster General, North Bengal Region, rejected the appeal and affirmed the dismissal by order dated 18.04.2024.

The applicant contended that he had worked at Chamurchi SO only during part of the relevant period, had reported the fraud to the competent authority by complaint dated 26.04.2018, and had been made a scapegoat by an incompetent authority.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was involved in the fraud, that an FIR and criminal case were pending before the Trial Court, and that a departmental inquiry had been conducted.

The applicant sought gratuity, commutation of pension, salary for the period between dismissal and retirement, commencement and arrears of pension, interest, and costs.

By the time of adjudication, he had attained the age of superannuation.

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the dismissal order dated 20.12.2021 and the appellate order dated 18.04.2024 after a departmental inquiry had been conducted and the applicant had attained superannuation.

Whether the applicant was entitled, at that stage, to release of gratuity, pension, commutation, salary, and consequential retiral benefits while the criminal case arising from the alleged fraud remained pending.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that judicial review of disciplinary action is limited where a departmental inquiry has been duly conducted, the employee has been afforded an opportunity to defend himself, and the disciplinary and appellate authorities have passed reasoned orders within their jurisdiction.

Upon the employee attaining the age of superannuation, reinstatement is no longer a practical remedy; questions concerning retiral benefits may be pursued before the competent authority in accordance with law, particularly where criminal proceedings connected with the misconduct remain pending.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been subjected to a detailed departmental inquiry and had received an opportunity to establish his innocence before the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

The objections regarding his limited posting period, prior complaint, and the competence of the authorities were treated as matters that could and should have been raised earlier; the Tribunal considered the belated challenge to be an afterthought.

Since the applicant had already reached superannuation, reinstatement could not be ordered.

Further, the pending criminal case concerning the alleged fraud made it inappropriate to direct immediate release of the claimed retiral benefits.

The Tribunal therefore declined to interfere at that stage, while leaving the applicant free to seek an appropriate remedy from the competent authority if acquitted.

It declined to set aside the dismissal and appellate orders, refused to grant reinstatement or immediate retiral benefits, and held that the applicant could approach the competent authority under law if he was acquitted in the pending criminal case.

The Original Application was dismissed without costs.