ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Counsel for applicant states that DASTI process was taken and the respondents have been served. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 is present and there is no appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On asking, Shri R.N. Singh, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Ministry of HRD (1st respondent) and Shri H.K. Gangwani, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of Union Public Service Commission (2nd respondent).
2. The prayer made in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to direct the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 8 weeks from the date of passing of the order by this Tribunal.
3. Briefly the facts of the case reveal that on 27.12.2001, i.e., just three days before applicant’s retirement, she was placed under suspension and served with a chargesheet for certain alleged irregularities while working as Vice Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Secondary School, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi during the year 1998, vide Annexure A-II. On 31.12.2001, applicant retired as Principal, Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Brahmapuri, Delhi, i.e., after 35 years of service under the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. On retirement, half of her pension and entire gratuity amount were withheld in view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
4. The case of the applicant is that soon after the retirement, she developed cardiac, renal and other serious health related problems on account of which she is bed ridden and since then requiring frequent hospitalization, regular medication and care at home. Some medical papers regarding hospitalization and treatment are annexed as Annexure A-III. Because of her ailments, applicant was not able to appear before the Enquiry Officer personally and was represented only by a representative. On 19.08.2004, the Enquiry Officer gave his findings after about three years holding that Charge Nos. III and IV of Articles of Charge, namely, alleged irregular expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- on repairs of furniture and mis-appropriation of a sum of Rs. 606.50 received from sale of waste magazines/newspapers, were not proved. However, as regards Charge No. I, namely, alleged collection of a sum of Rs. 22273/- from students in the name of ‘Helpage India’ but only Rs. 1527/- were deposited on that account, was proved. With regard to Charge No. II, namely, alleged sale of diaries, identity cards and syllabus to students by a private supplier in the School, the case of the applicant is that even though the EO recorded a finding that this was done at the instance of Parents Teachers Association for the sake of convenience through the respective class teachers, yet the applicant was held guilty of the charge on the premise that she should have obtained approval from the Director of Education for the same. On 30.12.2004, the applicant submitted a written brief to the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure A-VI. She urged for an early decision, as she was suffering from cardiac, renal and other serious health problems. On 12.12.2005, she made a further representation to the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi seeking his intervention, vide Annexure A-VII. In reply thereto, the applicant has been advised by 6th respondent vide impugned order dated 27.01.2006 (Annexure A-I) that her complete retirement benefits can only be released after completion of the departmental proceedings. In the wake of the circumstances mentioned above, the only relief, as mentioned above, is to complete the disciplinary proceedings in a time bound manner.
5. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have entered appearance and filed their reply. In that, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that the Enquiry Officer in his inquiry report had held Article I of charge as partly proved whereas Article II of charge has been proved whereas Articles III and IV of charge have not been proved. Since the applicant had retired from service on 31.12.2001, her case has been sent to the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, along with the recommendations of Hon’ble Lt. Governor for passing a final order under Section 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, vide letter dated 23.1.2006 and the same is still awaited.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined the record of the case. The facts of the case, as mentioned above, would clearly manifest that the applicant retired way back in 2001 and has not been paid gratuity and is getting only half of pension on account of departmental enquiry still pending against her. It cannot be disputed that a retired employee may not be able to sustain himself/herself only on the partial pension he/she may get. In the case of the applicant, it would be far more difficult when she is terribly sick. The enquiry proceedings should have been completed by now and if there may be some merit in the contentions raised by the applicant with regard to charges, which have been proved against her, in that case, the applicant would have a chance for restoration of half pension and payment of gratuity. In any case, when some of the charges have not been proved, it may be a case of reduction of penalty. We would, however, not comment positively on this aspect of this case.
7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to deal with the case of the applicant and pass orders, as required and as even advised by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, vide letter dated 23.1.2006, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. This Original Application is allowed to the limited extent as mentioned above. No costs.