false information furnished caused financial loss

A.Mohamed Thaheer (Querist) 28 May 2009 This query is : Resolved
What will be the legal course of criminal action could be initiated against the official who furnished false particulars resulting to withholding of the retiral benefits for more than 5 years?

The details of the case is follows:

"A" retired on 30-09-2004.

On the date of retirement, there was one Disciplinary Proceeding was pending under Rule 9 (2) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Hence, all his retiral benefits were withheld.

On 28-04-2006, the Disciplinary Proceeding
was dropped and eligible for all retiral benefits with effect from 29-04-2008.

After a period of 6 months from the date of exoneration from the charge, the Head of the Department had sent a proposal for the payment of only provisional pension, but not for other retiral benefits such as gratuity, commutation of pension etc., for which the retired officer is legally entitled.

In the pension proposal form, the Head of the Department had purposely and vindictively furnished FALSE PARTICULARS
as if there is some criminal proceeding pending against the retired officer, (i.e)
on 20-11-2006. (after the acquittal of the only one charge pending on the date of retirement.This false information has resulted in withholding of other retiral benefits till date.

This false particulars have been furnished in contravention of rule 9 (6) (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

By proving the false particulars furnished by the Head of the Department to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,
the CAT directed to make the payment of the entire retiral benefits with interest, observing that the withholding of the retiral benefits is legally illegal.

But the High Court Chennai, quashed the CAT order without application of mind and without verifying the relevant documentary evidences submitted to the CAT and also without reading the entire judgment of the CAT who justified each and every point in detail after careful examination of all the relevant records in this case.

This is a very clear case of apparent error on the face of record and clear non application of mind and judgment is also PER INCURIUM.

The judgment of the High Court was given on 30-09-2008. Due to some valid reasons, no review application could be filed till date.

Now, the time has matured for making a review application for obvious reasons, which could be explained for condonation of delay for making review application?

Will the review application will be entertained at this stage or not, or it will be affected by the period of limitation for the delay of more than 6 months?

Please examine and give your expertise legal advice.

Follow Query

Report Abuse