http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1980 of 2008

PETITIONER: B.S.N.L. & Ors

RESPONDENT: Rajesh Kumar Saxena

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

    CIVIL APPEAL NO 1980 OF 2008 (arising out of SLP ( C ) No. 3643 of 2007)

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal by way of special leave is based on the  following facts. 3.      The respondent Rajesh Kumar Saxena was placed under  suspension vide order dated 26th June, 2004 under sub-rule(1)  of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control  and Appeal) Rules 1965 on the allegation that while working  as an Officiating Chief Accounts Officer in Moradabad in the  year 2003, he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and  shown lack of devotion to duty.  The appellant however  attained the age of superannuation during his suspension and  was retired provisionally on 31st July, 2004 as per order  Annexure P-2, with the stipulation that as per the Central  Civil Services Rules (Pension Rules) 1972 the payments due to  him would be made on finalization of the disciplinary  proceedings. The order dated   26th June, 2004 was challenged  before the Allahabad High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The  Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated 23rd  November, 2006 held that as the charge sheet had been served  on the appellant more than one year after his retirement, the  proceedings against him were nonest and that as suspension  itself was not a punishment and that in any case, it would  ’evaporate’ on his superannuation,  there was no justification  in withholding the retirement benefits such as pension,  provident fund, leave salary, group insurance, CDS amount  etc. and a direction was issued to make all payments within a  period of two months from the date of communication of the  order. It is in this circumstance, the present appeal is before  us by way of special leave at the instance of the department. 4.      Several arguments have been raised by the learned  counsel for the appellant during the course of the hearing and  reference has been made to various rules. Special reference  has  however been laid on the fact that very serious allegations  of misconduct on the part of the respondent and 30 other  departmental officers who too had been suspended had been  revealed during investigation.  5.      The learned counsel for the respondents has however  pointed out that the question as to whether initiation of  proceedings could or could not be made after the retirement of  the respondent and as to whether the chargesheet had been  served within the requisite period had been raised in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

appeal and which needed to be answered before a reversal of  the High Court’s judgment. We are however of the opinion that  at this stage we are not called upon to go through these issues  as to do so could have the effect of damaging the cause of one  or the other party in the departmental proceedings that are  presently going on and in particular, those amongst the  suspended officials who are not before us in this matter.  We  are accordingly of the opinion that as per the rules, the  respondent would be entitled to the payment of provisional  pension and to the release of his provident fund alone and he  would have to await the decision on the enquiry before the  release of the other retiral benefits. We also make it clear that  as we have not dealt with the basic legal issues raised by the  parties, they would be at liberty to raise them at any  subsequent stage should the need so arises. We allow the  appeal to the above extent.  The order of the High Court shall  be deemed to be modified in the above terms.