IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 813 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- OA.502/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. MEMBER (PERSONNEL & VIGILANCE), CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3. CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSIONR, SALARKKA BHAVAN, G.P.O.COMPLEX INA, NEW DELHI -110023. 4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 18. 5. THE COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN -18. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCISE RESPONDENT: P.D.MANGALANANDAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (RTD.) PULLYATH HOUSE, EROOR WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682306. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P (CAT). No. 813 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on a Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners seeking enlargement of time for disbursement of the retiral benefits to the respondent herein is under challenge in this Original Petition. 2. Petitioners sought enlargement of time in the following facts and circumstances. 3. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent for certain alleged misconduct. Admittedly the Department could not complete the said disciplinary proceeding within reasonable time. Therefore, respondent had filed OA.No. 502/2010 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the Department to issue pension payment order and make payment of gratuity, commutation value of pension etc. in tune with the Sixth Pay Commission Report. The said Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated October 1, 2010 and the charge memo issued against the respondent was quashed. The Department was directed to pass appropriate orders on the claim made by the respondent for grant of retiral benefits within 60 days OPCAT 813/2011 from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 4. Since the Department did not pass any orders on the pension papers, the respondent had initiated proceedings for contempt. Petitioners had filed the Miscellaneous Application referred to above before the Tribunal seeking enlargement of time for completing the process. The Tribunal extended the time by two months and directed the Department to complete the process on or before February 7, 2011. The said order is primarily under challenge in this Original Petition. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the Tribunal in OA.502/2010 as well in this Original Petition. 5. When this Original Petition came up for admission we directed the petitioners to take out notice to the respondent through special messenger. Though notice has been served on the respondent he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. Therefore we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 6. Sri. John Varghese learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Department is making an earnest endeavour to complete the process of finalizing the pension claim made by the respondent at the earliest. But the Department may need some more time to complete the process since several old records will OPCAT 813/2011 have to be scrutinised. 7. He further submits that Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal in OA.No.502/2010 cannot be sustained in the eye of law for reasons more than one. We are unable to agree. The Tribunal noticed, correctly in our view, that the Department had issued the charge memo against the respondent after a lapse of 5 years from the date of the alleged commission of the acts of misconduct. A perusal of Annexure A2 memo of charge clearly revealed that the misconduct was in the year 1999; but the charge sheet was issued to the respondent only on August 31, 2004. The Department did not bother to offer any explanation for the inordinate delay. While dealing with the above issue the Tribunal had taken note of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Radhakrishnan (1998 (4) SCC 154), P.V.Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board (2005 (6) SCC 636) and M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors. (2006 (5) SCC 88). The Tribunal had also found that sub-rule 2 (b) of Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 prohibits initiation of proceedings with regard to an incident that occurred more than 4 years before such institution or framing of the charges. 8. Having carefully perused the impugned order in OA.No. 502/2010 (Ext.P2) we do not find any reason to interfere with the OPCAT 813/2011 said order. Therefore the prayer made by the petitioners to quash Ext.P3 is repelled. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the time for completing the process of finalisation of the claim for pensionary benefits payable to the respondent is enlarged till August 31, 2011. The Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an. OPCAT 813/2011 A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. ------------------------- OP(CAT)No.813 of 2011 ------------------------- JUDGMENT 1st March, 2011