Rajesh Kumar Bansal vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar Bansal, sought voluntary retirement effective December 1, 2022. At the time of retirement, no criminal or departmental cases were pending against him. A Fact Finding Committee was formed due to missing files, and its report indicated that files might have been misplaced before the petitioner took charge. The respondents conceded that no charge-sheet had been issued to the petitioner. However, they raised a concern that the petitioner had collected Goods and Services Tax (GST) but had not deposited it with the GST Department, suggesting a potential demand from the GST Department. The mode of collection (cash or banking channel) was unclear.

Held

The Court directed the respondents to ascertain within one month whether the GST collected by the petitioner was in cash or through banking channels. If it was collected in cash, the respondents were permitted to withhold an amount equivalent to the GST involved until the matter concerning the GST was concluded. If the GST was collected through banking channels, the respondents were directed to release the petitioner's retiral dues within two months from the date of the order. The Court's reasoning was based on the need to clarify the mode of collection to determine the appropriate course of action regarding the withholding of dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents can withhold the petitioner's retiral dues in the absence of a charge-sheet, considering the applicable rules. The petitioner argued that retiral dues cannot be withheld without a charge-sheet. The respondents conceded this point but raised the issue of un-deposited GST. 2. Whether the respondents can withhold an amount equal to the un-deposited GST from the petitioner's retiral dues. The petitioner's contention was not explicitly recorded on this specific point, but the overall prayer was for the release of retiral dues. The respondents argued that if GST was collected and not deposited, the department might raise a demand, justifying withholding an equivalent amount. The court also sought to ascertain the method of GST collection (cash or banking channel).