R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:20.09.2011 The Chief Secretary to Govt. Haryana and others ......Appellants Versus R.P.Yadav .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajiv Prashad, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is that, R.P.Yadav son of Late Bihari Lal-respondent-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) joined as a Fisheries Officer in Fisheries Department of the State of Haryana, on 01.04.1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as District Fisheries Officer in the year 1990. Having served as District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Gurgaon, he retired from service on 31.05.2009, after attaining the age of superannuation. His entire retiral benefits were not released within a reasonable period in the garb of some vigilance departmental enquiry against him. The plaintiff claimed that although a vigilance enquiry was initiated against him, but during the course of investigation, he was found totally innocent. He was not challaned and his name was placed in column No.2 of innocent persons of the final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The plaintiff has challenged the action of the defendants, for not releasing his retiral benefits in time. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) 2 events, in all, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants have intentionally withheld his pensionary benefits, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction, directing The Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and other officers- appellant-defendants(for short “the defendants”), to release his entire retiral benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, admitting the employment, period of service and date of retirement of the plaintiff. According to the defendants that, he was thrice charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Civil Services(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987, for irregularities/misconduct committed by him and and two increments (one each for two enquiries) without cumulative effect were stopped vide Haryana Govt. orders dated 27.06.1997 and 06.01.2009 and a warning was also issued to him in respect of third enquiry by way of order dated 02.04.2009. The defendants claimed that the payment in lieu of leave encashment, GIS and GPF has already been released to the plaintiff. However, the amount of pension, commuted pension and gratuity was withheld for want of clearance certificate from the Vigilance Department. The defendants further claimed that the moment, vigilance clearance certificate was received, thereafter, remaining retiral benefits were paid to him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleas, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence. R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) 3 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendants were directed to release the amount of retiral benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.06.2009, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011. 8. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees and preferred the present regular second appeal. 9. After hearing the learned State Counsel, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 10. As is evident from the record that, having served as District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, the plaintiff retired from service on 31.05.2009, after attaining the age of superannuation. The amount in lieu of his pension, commuted pension and gratuity was withheld only on the untenable ground that the defendants did not receive the clearance certificate from the Vigilance Department. 11. What is not disputed here is that no doubt the vigilance enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff, but during the course of investigation, he was found innocent by the investigating agency. He was not challaned by the police and his name was placed in column No.2 of the final police report, as contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. That means, once the plaintiff was found innocent by the investigating agency, then the defendants cannot possibly be heard to say that the amount of pension, commuted pension and gratuity was withheld on account of pendency of the criminal case. 12. In this manner, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) 4 plaintiff. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.03.2011, which in substance is as under:- “Learned Government Pleader has argued that the appellant-defendants have withheld the amount of pension, gratuity and commutation of pay on the ground that in 2003 State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon had initiated an enquiry No.34/1 in case No.19/2003 qua alleged embezzlement of government funds in which case although the plaintiff was not found involved but he along with two others was kept in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted in the court and the Vigilance Department has not issued 'clearance certificate' on the ground that during the pendency of the said case, the possibility of the plaintiff being summoned to face trial on the basis of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be ruled out. However, I find myself unable to accept this argument because merely on the ground that in the above mentioned vigilance case the respondent-plaintiff had been named as an accused and admittedly placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., his pensionary benefits cannot be withheld more so when it is not the case of the appellant-defendants that any revision/appeal has been filed on their behalf against placing the respondent-plaintiff in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., or any application having been moved in the court for summoning of the respondent-plaintiff at the time of consideration of charge against the other accused in the said case, or at any stage thereafter. Thus, withholding of pensionary benefits by the appellant- respondents on the ground of non-issuance of 'clearance certificate' by the Vigilance Department cannot be considered to be a valid or legally justifiable ground.” 13. Learned State Counsel did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 14. Neither any question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, nor any other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned State Counsel. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the R.S.A. No.3376 of 2011(O&M) 5 obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. September 20, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE