1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9887/06 V.S. Ahlawat vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 1/4/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Ashok Gaur for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay interest for delayed payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, who was serving the respondents as Additional Chief Engineer after attaining the age of superannuation and retired on 30.9.2000. Only two weeks before the date of his retirement, he was served with the charge sheet on 14.9.2000. No proceedings were held in the departmental enquiry inasmuch as the retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld for a long period of time. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition no.2445/01. This Court taking serious note of the fact directed the respondents to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of four 2 months and also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost. Subsequently, the enquiry officer in his report did not find the charge proved grant the petitioner. The Government passed the order on 1.8.2006 exonerating the petitioner of the charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the first place the charge sheet was in relation to the incident of 1994-1995, which was served belatedly on 14.9.2000 when the petitioner was on the verge of retirement and secondly the disciplinary proceeding has not proceeded at all for last six years so much so that the petitioner had to suffer and his retiral dues were not paid. Had the enquiry been conducted timely the petitioner would have been exonerated much before. All this time, the respondents illegally retained the amount of retiral dues of the petitioner. It is contended that even the amount of cost which has been awarded by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment was waived by the division bench in appeal filed by the respondents. Learned Additional Government Counsel 3 opposed the writ petition and submitted that the retiral dues of the petitioner were not withheld without any reason and there was valid justification for non payment of the same to the petitioner owning to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Now that the petitioner has been exonerated the PPO in his case has been issued on 20.12.2000 and the petitioner has already been paid all the dues. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that there was indeed gross delay of six years initially in issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner and subsequently again the enquiry proceedings were concluded after delay of same period of six years, in which the petitioner was exonerated by order of disciplinary authority dated 1.8.2006. The retiral dues of the petitioner were not paid for such a length of time. In normal course, pendency of departmental proceedings should be a valid justification for delay in payment of retiral dues and delinquent in that event would be awarded interest, but here in the facts of the present case, it is 4 clearly evident that respondents have been less diligent in proceeding with the matter and have abnormally delayed the initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner interest @ 6% for delay on the amount of retiral dues paid to him. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/