GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) AND ANOTHER versus K. SRIVATSAN

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 16-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 834 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) AND ANOTHER 
v. 
K. SRIVATSAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8854 OF 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: 
rr. 9(2)(b)(ii), 9(6)(a) - Withholding of gratuity pending 
C departmental proceedings - Held: r.9(2)(b)(ii) mandates that 
no departmental proceedings can be initiated after the 
retirement of an employee, unless a charge sheet has been 
issued within four years of the event of delinquency - r. 9(6)(a), 
by a deeming fiction of law mandates that departmental 
D proceedings will be deemed to have been initiated against an 
employee who has been placed under suspension - In the 
instant case, respondent was placed under suspension, for the 
first time, on 3. 12. 2007 - Although suspension order was 
revoked on 5. 5. 2008, he was again placed under suspension 
E on 29.2.2008 - The said suspension order subsisted till the 
date of the respondent's superannuation, i.e., till 30.06.2008 
- In view of that, the date of initiation of the departmental 
proceedings against the respondent, by a deeming fiction of 
law, would be the date when he was placed under suspension 
F - Since the respondent was placed under suspension whilst 
he was still in service, r. 9(2)(b)(ii) will have no applicability ·to 
the facts and circumstances of the case - The orders passed 
by the Tribunal and the High Court granting gratuity are set 
aside - Since the respondent had already been released his 
G gratuity, rather than requiring him to refund the entire amount 
of gratuity, it is just and appropriate to require him to furnish 
a bank guarantee to the appellants which would be 
encashable, if he is found guilty of the charges levelled 
against him, on the culmination of the departmental 
H proceedings. 
834 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) v. K. SRIVATSAN 
835 
The respondent-employee was charged of financial 
A 
dereliction and favoritism and suspended by the 
appellant on 03.12.2007. However, the suspension order 
was revoked on 05.02.2008. He was again placed under 
;suspension by order dated 29.02.2008 .. On 30~09.2008, the 
respondent attained the age of superannuation. On 
B 
27.06.2008, the appellant lodged a complaint to the CBI 
for initiating action against the respondent. After 
investigation, the CBI gave closure report oil 28.1.201 O 
which was accepted on 15.10.2012. On 19.04.2012, the 
CBI recommended departmental action against the C 
respondent and charge sh~et was served on him ·on 
07 .05.2012. 
The grievance of the respondent was that he was not 
paid gratuity after his superannuation. Aggrieved he 
succe~sfully filed OA before th~ CAT. The appellant filed D 
writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. 
HE~D: 1. The issue of release of gratuity i~ regulated 
by Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 
· 1972. A perusal of Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules reveals, 
·that gratuity can be withheld if "departmental or judiCial 
proceedings" are pending against the concerned 
employee. Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) mandates, that no departmental 
proceedings can be initiated after the retir.ement of an 
employee, unless a charge sheet has been issued within 
four years of the event of delinquency. The determination 
, rendered by the. High Court led to the conclusion, that 
since no charge sh~et was issued to the respondent, 
E 
F 
. after his su.perannuation within the period contemplated 
G 
by Rule 9(2)(b)(ii), it was no· longer competent for the 
authorities to take departmental action against him, since 
more than f6ur ye~us had lapsed. [Paras 8 & 9] [839-D; 
· 841-F-H; 842-A] 
H 
A 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
2. Rule 9(6)(a) states that initiation of departmental 
proceedings will be assumed when the statement of 
charges is issued to an employee. In the instant case, it 
is not a matter of dispute that the charge sheet was 
issued on 19.04.2012. That being the position, it was 
B asserted on behalf of the Tespondent, that the allegation 
of delinquency having occurred much before the period 
of four years from the date of issuance of the charge 
sheet, no departmental proceedings could have been 
initiated against the respondent within the meaning of 
C Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules. Rule 9(6)(a), by a 
deeming fiction of law also mandates, that departmental 
proceedings will be deemed to have been initiated 
against an employee who

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.