# Ram Roop Parasar v. C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 831
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-05-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19509 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra, Vipin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-roop-parasar-v-c-a-t-allahabad-ors-42617
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Central Civil Service Rules-1972- Rule
68(1)-Interest on delay in payment of
post retirel benefit-petitioner retired on
31.01.1997-charge sheet submitted on
06.01.1997
and
03.04.1997
enquiry
officer found all allegation baselessmatter referred to higher authoritieswho decided to dropped disciplinary
proceeding on 30.10.2008-benefit given
in Jan 2001 claim of interest denied-as
petitioner not exonerated but proceeding
dropped-held-misconceived-when
enquiry
officer
recommended
for
exoneration
which
refused
drop
of
proceeding-petitioner
entitled
for
interest-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para-29
In view of the above discussion, we are
of the opinion that the Writ Petition
deserves to be allowed, and the order
dated 1.11.2004 passed by the Tribunal
is liable to be quashed, and the matter is
liable to be remitted to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration of the case in the
light of the observations made above.

## Text

2 All] Ram Roop Parasar Vs. C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors.
831
entire arguments or reconsider the matter
de novo or review its own judgment.

12. In the light of the aforesaid, the
order of the Commissioner dated 14th
November, 2011 allowing the recall
application and rejecting the claim of the
petitioner is patently illegal and without
jurisdiction, which cannot be sustained
and is quashed.

13. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19509 of 2005

Ram Roop Parasar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satya Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.S.C., Sri Rakesh Sinha

Central Civil Service Rules-1972- Rule
68(1)-Interest on delay in payment of
post retirel benefit-petitioner retired on
31.01.1997-charge sheet submitted on
06.01.1997
and
03.04.1997
enquiry
officer found all allegation baselessmatter referred to higher authoritieswho decided to dropped disciplinary
proceeding on 30.10.2008-benefit given
in Jan 2001 claim of interest denied-as
petitioner not exonerated but proceeding
dropped-held-misconceived-when
enquiry
officer
recommended
for
exoneration
which
refused
drop
of
proceeding-petitioner
entitled
for
interest-matter remitted back for fresh
consideration.

Held: Para-29
In view of the above discussion, we are
of the opinion that the Writ Petition
deserves to be allowed, and the order
dated 1.11.2004 passed by the Tribunal
is liable to be quashed, and the matter is
liable to be remitted to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration of the case in the
light of the observations made above.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The present Writ Petition has
been filed by the petitioner under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, interalia,
praying for quashing the order dated
1.11.2004 (Annexure-9 to the Writ
Petition)
passed
by
the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad
Bench,
Allahabad
(in
short
"the
Tribunal") as also the order dated
11.5.2011 (Annexure-5 to the Writ
Petition)
passed
by
the
Deputy
Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I,
Kanpur communicated to the petitioner by
the
communication
dated
5.7.2001
(Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) by the
Joint
Commissioner
(P&V),
Central
Excise, Kanpur. Further prayer has been
made for directing the respondents to pay
interest over the retiral benefits of
pension, death-cum-retiral gratuity and
leave encashment and also to pay a sum
of Rs. 18,863/- against commutation
value.

2. It appears that at the relevant
time, the petitioner was posted as
Superintendent, Customs and Central
Excise in Division-I, Central Excise,
Range-3, Kanpur. The petitioner retired
from service on 31.1.1997. It further
appears that on account of an Audit
Objection dated 28.9.1994 by the Senior
Deputy
Accountant
General,
U.P.
Allahabad regarding loss of revenue ,
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
chargesheets dated 6.1.1997 and 3.4.1997
were issued to the petitioner and three
others. As the petitioner was retiring from
service on 31.1.1997, an order for
continuation of the proceedings under
Rule 9(2)(a) of the C.C.S. (Pension)
Rules, 1972 (in short "the Pension Rules,
1972") was also issued and the same was
served on the petitioner by the order dated
22.1.1997.

3. It further appears that the Enquiry
Report dated 15.5.1998 was submitted by
the
Inquiry
Officer
(Assistant
Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I,
Kanpur-I). The Enquiry Report dated
15.5.1998 was communicated to the
petitioner by the communication dated
26.5.1998 sent by the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur-I. Copies of the
said communication dated 26.5.1998
alongwith the Enquiry Report dated
15.5.1998 have been collectively annexed
as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.

4. The Inquiry Officer in the said
Enquiry Report concluded as under:

"On the basis of foregoing I feel that
allegation of revenue loss as made in the
Memorandum is baseless and there
appears no revenue loss. Hence the
question of failure of charged officer in
detecting said revenue loss does not arise.
Charges levelled in this regard in the
memorandum is not sustainable."

5. It further transpires that pursuant
to the said Enquiry Report, the Senior
Audit Officer, I.D.T./D.P. in the Office of
the Accountant General (Audit) II, U.P.,
Allahabad sent a communication dated
30.10.2000 (Annexure-3 to the Writ
Petition) to the Joint Commissioner
(Audit), Central Excise Commissionerate,
Lucknow, interalia, stating that it had
been decided to settle the Audit Objection
in respect of the aforesaid matter relating
to the petitioner. It further appears that
thereafter
on
7.12.2000,
Vigilance
Clearance was given in respect of the
petitioner.
Subsequent
to
the
said
Vigilance Clearance, retiral benefits were
paid to the petitioner in the months of
January, 2001, February, 2001 and
March, 2001. Thus, entire retiral benefits
stood paid to the petitioner. The petitioner
made a claim for interest on account of
late payment of retiral benefits and also in
regard to the short payment of Rs.
18,863/- against commutation value. By
the
communication
dated
5.7.2001
(Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition), the
petitioner was communicated that by the
communication
dated
11.5.2001
(Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition), the
claim of the petitioner in respect of the
interest on account of delay in payment of
retiral benefits and short payment of Rs.
18,863/- against commutation value had
not
been
accepted.
Copy
of
the
communication dated 11.5.2001 was also
enclosed with the said communication
dated 5.7.2001. The petitioner thereupon
filed an Original Application being
Original Application No. 121 of 2003
before the Tribunal. Copy of the Original
Application, verified as true copy, by Shri
Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has been provided by him to
the Court during the course of arguments.
Following reliefs were claimed by the
petitioner in his Original Application
before the Tribunal:

"i) The respondents may be directed
to quash the order dated 11-5-2011 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner,Central
Excise, Division-I, Kanpur and the order
communicated on 5-7-2001 by the Joint
Commissioner P&V, Central Excise,
2 All] Ram Roop Parasar Vs. C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors.
833
Kanpur, contained in Annexures 5 & 6
respectively,
when
the
proceedings
initiated
against
the
applicant
vide
memorandum of charge dated 3-4-1997
were
pending
and
ultimately
the
memorandum of charge dated 3-4-1997
was dropped by the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur vide his order
dated 11-2-2002.

ii) The respondents may be directed
to pay the interest over the retiral benefits
of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity
and leave encashment.

iii) The respondents may be directed
to pay Rs. 18,863/- against commutation
value.

(iv) The suitable relief which this
Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper."

6. It will, thus, be noticed that in the
said Original Application, the petitioner,
interalia, claimed interest over the retiral
benefits of pension, death-cum-retirement
gratuity and leave encashment and further
claimed an amount of Rs. 18,863/- against
commutation value.

7. By the order dated 1.11.2004, the
Tribunal dismissed the said Original
Application filed by the petitioner.
Relevant portion of the order of the
Tribunal is reproduced below:

"The only question, which arises for
decision, is with regard to the payment of
interest, on delayed payment of retiral
benefits to the applicant. It may be stated
that Rule 68 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules
and Government of India's decision
clearly provides that the interest will be
paid only in case of full exoneration in the
Disciplinary
Proceedings.
It
is
not
applicable
in
the
case
where
the
Disciplinary Proceedings is dropped and
it is not because of the applicant that he
was fully exonerated, he is claiming it on
the
ground
that
the
Disciplinary
Proceedings were dropped and he was
entitled for payment of interest on the
delayed payment. I have no doubt about it
that there is a distinction between the full
exoneration in Disciplinary Proceeding
and
dropping
of
the
Disciplinary
Proceeding. In view of these facts, the
O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the O.A. is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed. I find
no justification to interfere with the
impugned orders.

9. No orders as to costs."

10. The petitioner has, thereupon,
filed the present Writ Petition seeking the
reliefs, as mentioned above.

11. We have heard Shri Satya
Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Shri Rakesh Sinha, learned counsel
for the respondents, and perused the
record.

12. In order to appreciate the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, it is pertinent to note that
by the order dated 11.2.2002 (Annexure-7
to the Writ Petition), the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur dropped the
proceedings against the petitioner and
other three persons started pursuant to the
chargesheets dated 6.1.1997 and 3.4.1997.
Relevant portion of the said order dated
11.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur is as under:

"6. The facts as afore-stated were
brought to the notice of the Central
Vigilance Commission and the Second
Stage Advice in the matter was requested
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
by this office. The Central Vigilance
Commission,
vide
their
letter
C.No.A/CEX/60 dated 11.12.2001, which
was communicated to this office under
cover of letter F.No. V.538/1/96/28 dated
02.01.2002 issued by the Directorate
General of Vigilance, New Delhi, advised
the exoneration of S/Shri R.R. Parshar,
Superintendent (Retd.), R.C. Sharma,
Superintendent, Tarun Banerjee, Inspector
and S.P.S. Nirmal, Inspector in the
referred case.

13. In view of the Discussion and
Findings stated above, I order as under:

ORDER

The proceedings initiated against the
charged
officers
vide
Memoranda
C.No.II(10)Vig./1/97/11-12
dated
06.01.97, C.No. II(10)Vig./8/97/272-273
dated
03.04.97,
C.No.
II(10)
Vig./9/97/274-275 dated 03.04.97 and
C.No. II(10)Vig./10/97/ 270-271 dated
03.04.97 are hereby dropped."

14. Shri Satya Prakash, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Tribunal erred in law in making distinction
between
exoneration
in
disciplinary
proceedings and dropping of the disciplinary
proceedings having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case. It is
submitted that a perusal of the order dated
11.2.2002 passed by the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur shows that the
petitioner was in fact exonerated of the
charges and in consequence, the proceedings
against the petitioner were dropped. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal confined
itself to the consideration of the claim of the
petitioner in respect of the late payment of
gratuity and it did not consider the claim of
the petitioner for interest on account of
delayed payment of other retiral benefits.

15. Shri Rakesh Sinha, learned
counsel for the respondents submits that
the Tribunal has correctly dismissed the
Original
Application
filed
by
the
petitioner. It is submitted that the
proceedings against the petitioner were
dropped only on 11.2.2002 while the
retiral benefits had already been paid to
the petitioner in the months of January,
February and March, 2001 and as such,
there was no delay in the payment of
retiral benefits to the petitioner.

16. It is further submitted that the
Tribunal rightly made the distinction
between the exoneration in disciplinary
proceedings
and
dropping
of
the
disciplinary proceedings.

17. We have considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.

18. Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 including relevant Decisions /
Instructions of the Government of India is
reproduced below:

"68. Interest on delayed payment
of gratuity

[1. If the payment of gratuity has
been authorized later than the date when
its payment becomes due, and it is clearly
established that the delay in payment was
attributable
to
administrative
lapses,
interest shall be paid at such rate as may
be prescribed and in accordance with the
instructions issued from time to time.

Provided that the delay in payment
was not caused on account of failure on
the part of the Government servant to
2 All] Ram Roop Parasar Vs. C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors.
835
comply with the procedure laid down by
the Government for processing his
pension papers.]

2. Every case of delayed payment of
gratuity shall be considered by the
Secretary of the Administrative Ministry
or the Department in respect of its
employees and the employees of its
attached and subordinate offices and
where the Secretary of the Ministry or the
Department is satisfied that the delay in
the payment of gratuity was caused on
account of administrative lapse, the
Secretary
of
the
Ministry
or
the
Department shall sanction payment of
interest.

3. The Administrative Ministry or the
Department
shall
issue
Presidential
Sanction for the payment of interest after
the Secretary has sanctioned the payment
of interest under sub-rule (2).

4. In all cases where the payment of
interest has been sanctioned by the
Secretary of the Administrative Ministry
or the Department, such Ministry or the
Department shall fix the responsibility
and take disciplinary action against the
Government servant or servants who are
found responsible for the delay in the
payment of gratuity.

5. Deleted.

Government of India's Decisions

(1) Admissibility of interest on
gratuity allowed after conclusion of
judicial/ departmental proceedings. - 1.
Under the rules, gratuity becomes due
immediately on retirement. In case of a
Government servant dying in service a
detailed time-table for finalizing pension
and death gratuity has been laid down,
vide Rule 77 onwards.

2. Where disciplinary or judicial
proceedings against a Government servant
are pending on the date of his retirement, no
gratuity is paid until the conclusion of the
proceedings and the issue of the final orders
thereon. The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn
by the Competent Authority on the
conclusion of the proceedings will be
deemed to have fallen due on the date of
issue of orders by the Competent Authority.

3. In order to mitigate the hardship to
the Government servants who, on the
conclusion of the proceedings, are fully
exonerated, it has been decided that the
interest on delayed payment of retirement
gratuity may also be allowed in their cases,
in
accordance
with
the
aforesaid
instructions. In other words, in such cases,
the gratuity will be deemed to have fallen
due on the date following the date of
retirement for the purpose of payment of
interest on delayed payment of gratuity. The
benefit of these instructions will, however,
not be available to such of the Government
servants who die during the pendency of
judicial/ disciplinary proceedings against
them and against whom proceedings are
consequently dropped.

4. These orders (Paragraph 3) shall
take effect from the 10th January, 1983.

(2) Interest for delayed payment of
Retirement/ Death Gratuity to be at the
rate
applicable
to
GPF
deposits.-
................"

19. From a perusal of the abovequoted Rule 68, it is evident that the same
deals with the question of payment of
interest on account of delayed payment of
gratuity.
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

20. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 68 provides
that if the payment of gratuity has been
authorized later than the date when its
payment becomes due, and it is clearly
established that the delay in payment was
attributable
to
administrative
lapses,
interest shall be paid at such rate as may
be prescribed and in accordance with the
instructions issued from time to time.

21. In view of the proviso to subrule (1) of Rule 68, it is necessary that
"the delay in payment was not caused on
account of failure on the part of the
Government servant to comply with the
procedure laid down by the Government
for processing his pension papers."

22. In other words, if the delay in
payment was caused on account of failure on
the part of the Government servant to
comply with the procedure laid down by the
Government for processing his pension
papers, then such delay would not be
attributable to administrative lapses.

23. Sub-para 2 of paragraph (1) of
the
Decisions/
Instructions
of
the
Government of India in respect of Rule 68
provides that "where disciplinary or
judicial
proceedings
against
a
Government servant are pending on the
date of his retirement, no gratuity is paid
until the conclusion of the proceedings
and the issue of the final orders thereon.
The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn by
the
Competent
Authority
on
the
conclusion of the proceedings will be
deemed to have fallen due on the date of
issue of orders by the Competent
Authority."

24. Sub-para 3 of paragraph (1) of
the
Decisions/
Instructions
of
the
Government of India in respect of Rule
68, as quoted-above, interalia, provides
that "in order to mitigate the hardship to
the Government servants who, on the
conclusion of the proceedings, are fully
exonerated, it has been decided that the
interest on delayed payment of retirement
gratuity may also be allowed in their
cases." It is, interalia, further provided
that "in such cases, the gratuity will be
deemed to have fallen due on the date
following the date of retirement for the
purpose of payment of interest on delayed
payment of gratuity."

25. In view of the above Rule 68 of
the 1972 Rules, and the Decisions/
Instructions of the Government of India in
respect of the said Rule, it is evident that
in case the delay in payment of gratuity
was attributable to administrative lapses,
interest is required to be paid to the
employee concerned. It is further evident
that in case disciplinary proceedings are
going-on against the employee concerned
and
the
same
conclude
in
fully
exonerating the employee concerned, then
interest on delayed payment of retirement
gratuity would be allowed in his case, and
for the payment of such interest, the
gratuity would be "deemed to have fallen
due on the date following the date of
retirement".

26. The Tribunal in its order dated
1.11.2004 has referred to Rule 68 of the
Pension Rules, 1972 and has held that as
in case of the petitioner, the disciplinary
proceedings were dropped and the case of
the petitioner was not a case of the
petitioner being fully exonerated, no
interest was payable to the petitioner
under Rule 68. The Tribunal was
evidently relying upon sub-para 3 of para
(1) of the Decisions/ Instructions of the
Government of India in respect of Rule
68, as mentioned above. The Tribunal has
2 All] Ram Roop Parasar Vs. C.A.T. Allahabad & Ors.
837
emphasized that there is distinction
between
the
full
exoneration
in
disciplinary proceedings and dropping of
the disciplinary proceedings. In our view,
the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated
the import of the order dated 11.2.2002
passed by the Commissioner, Central
Excise, Kanpur. From a reading of the
entire order dated 11.2.2002, particularly,
paragrpah 6 thereof, it is evident that
while dropping the proceedings against
the petitioner and other persons, the
Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur
relied upon the Advice of the Central
Vigilance
Commission,
whereby
the
Central Vigilance Commission advised
the exoneration of the petitioner and other
three persons. Thus, the Commissioner,
Central Excise, Kanpur by the said order
dated 11.2.2002 dropped the proceedings
against the petitioner and other three
persons accepting the advice given by the
Central Vigilance Commission regarding
exoneration of the petitioner and other
three persons. Hence, the distinction
sought to be made by the Tribunal
between the dropping of disciplinary
proceedings and the full exoneration in the
disciplinary proceedings, does not exist in
the present case. In the circumstances, we are
of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have
considered on merits the question of payment
of interest to the petitioner on account of
delayed payment of gratuity in the light of
the aforesaid Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules and
the
Decisions/
Instructions
of
the
Government of India in respect of the said
Rule, particularly sub-paras 2 and 3 of para
(1) of the Decisions/ Instructions, as quotedabove.

27. It is further noteworthy that in
the Original Application, the petitioner
claimed interest on the delayed payment
of retiral benefits of pension, death-cumretirement gratuity and leave encashment
and also claimed an amount of Rs.
18,863/- against commutation value.

28. Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules, as
noted above, deals with the question of
payment of interest on account of delayed
payment of gratuity. The Tribunal has not
considered the claim of the petitioner for
interest in respect of other retiral benefits,
as claimed by the petitioner in the relief
clause of the Original Application.
Further, the Tribunal has also not
considered the claim of the petitioner for
payment
of
Rs.
18,863/-
against
commutation value.

29. In view of the above discussion,
we are of the opinion that the Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed, and the
order dated 1.11.2004 passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be quashed, and the
matter is liable to be remitted to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration of the
case in the light of the observations made
above.

30.

The
Writ
Petition
is,
accordingly, allowed.

31. The order dated 1.11.2004 passed
by the Tribunal is quashed. The matter is
remitted
to
the
Tribunal
for
fresh
consideration of the Original Application in
the light of the observations made above.

32. As the petitioner is an old
person, it will be appropriate that the
matter be decided by the Tribunal
expeditiously.

33. However, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, there will be no
order as to costs.
---------
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.06.2013.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.(U/s 482
Cr.P.C.) 20005 of 2013

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482-
Quashing of Criminal Proceeding-offence
under section 272, 273 I.P.C.-on ground in
view of food safety and standard Act 2006proceeding under IPC not amendable-In
view of law laid down by the Court in case
of Bankey Bihari Agrwal-entire proceeding
pending before Session Judge quashed.

Held: Para-7
Learned counsel for the applicant has
also placed reliance on a judgment of
this Court in the case of Bankey Bihari
Agarwal & another vs. State of U.P. &
others reported in 2013 (5) ADJ 201 in
which the proceedings on this ground
were quashed.

Case Law discussed:
W.P. No. 8255(M/B) of 2010; 2013(5) ADJ 201

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal,
learned counsel for the applicant and
learned A.G.A.

2. By means of present 482 Cr.P.C.
application, the applicant has prayed for
quashing the entire proceedings of Case
Crime No. 253 of 2010 under Section 272
& 273 I.P.C., police station Naraura,
District Bulandshahar pending before the
Additional District and Session Judge,
Bulandshahar as Session Trial No. 635 of
2011 (State vs. Mahesh) under Section
272 & 273 I.P.C. as well as the impugned
order dated 16.3.2013 and 23.3.2013
passed in the aforesaid session trial.

3. The facts of the case are that the
shop of the applicant was inspected by
opposite party no. 2 on 31.10.2010 and
had taken the sample of sweet (Besan Ka
Laddu) and the same to the Public
Analyst for its opinion. In the report of
the Public Analyst, Khesari was found in
the Sweet which is injurious to the health,
hence
the
same
was
adulterated.
Thereafter on the complaint of the
opposite party no.2, an F.I.R. has been
lodged
against
the
applicant
on
29.12.2010. The investigation of the
matter was done and after conclusion of
the investigation, report under Section
173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the
applicants under Sections 272 and 273
I.P.C. The applicant has moved a
discharge application annexed as Paper
No. 17-A to the present application on
1.5.2012 which was rejected by the trial
court on 16.3.2013. Subsequently, the
applicant has moved another application
annexed as Paper No. 27-B to the present
application before the trial seeking
adjournment on the ground that he want
to file an application before this Hon'ble
Court
challenging
the
order
dated
16.3.2013 which was also rejected by the
trial court by order dated 23.3.2013. Both
the orders are impugned herein.

4. The applicant has questioned
these proceedings on the ground that in