Thus, from a bare perusal of the order dated 09.05.2023, it is evident that the order imposing penalty dated 30.09.2008 and the rejection order dated 09.01.2013 were set aside on the ground of procedural irregularities. The said orders being set aside, S.M. Pillay would have to be treated as having retired on 31.01.2007 with a clean slate, consequently, being entitled to his retiral benefits, pension, etc. on the date of his retirement. The said payments were withheld on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings. In view of the exoneration of S.M. Pillay in the disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Retirement benefits being due to him w.e.f. the date of his retirement, the delay in payment would have to be considered from 31.01.2007. {Para 9}
10. With reference to the contention of the learned Advocate for the Respondents that the proceedings filed by S.M. Pillay against the penalty order being abated, consequently Petitioner not being entitled to interest, will have to be rejected in view of the specific observation in the order dated 09.05.2023 which has set aside the penalty order on the ground of procedural irregularity. Mere observation that the proceedings stood abated would not come to the aid of the Respondent No.2 to deny Petitioner interest on delayed payments of the retiral benefits payable to S.M. Pillay. This is more so on account the fact that his retiral dues were withheld on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings.
11. S.M. Pillay retired from service on 31.01.2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Though S.M. Pillay was placed on the suspension on 22.01.2007, he was served with the charge memo on 05.02.2007. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings is not initiated merely by issuance of show cause notice, it is initiated only when charge-sheet is issued (see Union of India & Others versus K.V. Jankiraman MANU/SC/0445/1991 : 1991:INSC:209 : (1991) 4 SCC 109). Mr. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the said Rules do not contemplate disciplinary proceedings after retirement of the employees. Mr. Tushad Kakalia, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 was unable to point out any provision in the said Rules which would enable the Respondent No.2 to initiate or continue proceedings upon the retirement of its employees. This is an additional ground to hold that S.M. Pillay was denied his retirement dues, upon his retirement.
12. Upon exoneration of S.M. Pillay, the period of suspension Petitioner i.e. 22.01.2007 to 31.01.2007 would have to be considered on duty and consequently, he would be entitled to his full pay during the said period, less the subsistence allowance paid during the said period.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 1918 of 2025
Decided On: 17.04.2025
Maheshwari Shanmugam Pillay Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.
Author: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:17375-DB,MANU/MH/2387/2025.
Print Page