1 329611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3296 OF 2011 Pralhad Narayan Barve ...Petitioner V/s The Chief Executive Officer, M.I.D.C., & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Sawant for the Petitioner Mr. Prashant Chavan with Mr. Suhas Patil i/by M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates for the Respondents CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 28TH JULY, 2011 P.C.:- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction against the respondents to release the amount payable to him towards Gratuity, Provident Fund, Earned Leave Encashment, Medical Leave Encashment and other retiral benefits along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation. 2 329611 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was charge-sheeted by the Department for misconduct and causing loss to the respondent- Corporation. Consequent to the said charge-sheet served on the petitioner, departmental inquiry was conducted, in which the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner was responsible to ensure that his subordinates weighed the steel properly. However, the petitioner was negligent in discharging that duty. In the same inquiry report dated 28th July, 2004, the Inquiry Officer negatived the charge framed against the petitioner that the petitioner was responsible for causing financial loss to the Corporation because of his negligence. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of this finding, the Corporation is withholding the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner, although the petitioner had retired on 31st July, 2004. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Corporation has not departed from the opinion recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental action against the petitioner. If the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is that the petitioner was not responsible for the financial loss caused to the Corporation on account of his negligence, that finding ought to bind the Corporation. The Corporation cannot be heard to contend to the contrary. The fact that the Corporation has already filed 3 329611 suit against the contractor for recovery of loss of Rs.20,00,000/- cannot be the basis to proceed against the petitioner - much less to withhold his retiral benefits, such as Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. As aforesaid, once the finding of the Inquiry Officer is that the petitioner is not responsible for the financial loss caused to the Corporation, the question of withholding his retiral benefits does not arise. The argument of the respondent-Corporation is that, so long as the suit pending against the contractor is not finally decided, it may not be appropriate to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner. We reject this contention for the reasons already noted earlier. 4. In view of the above, as there is no other reason for withholding the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner after his retirement on 31st July, 2004, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner ought to succeed in this petition. 5. However, the petitioner has further prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount to be paid to the petitioner till its realisation. In our opinion, the petitioner would be entitled to only statutory interest on the outstanding amount of retiral benefits. We make it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to only 4 329611 statutory interest on the amount on which such interest is payable for delayed payment. The amount payable to the petitioner be computed by the respondents on the above basis forthwith, and release such amount to the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which, the respondents would be liable to pay interest on the entire amount payable to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when it became due and payable to the petitioner. 6. Petition is allowed on the above terms. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.