DAYAL SARAN SANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was working as Superintendent in the Military Engineering Service at Chandigarh. On November 16, 1964, he made a complaint addressing a letter to the Engineer In-charge, Army Headquarters, New Delhi, that a certain contractor who was given the work of construction of roads at Lalru was not doing the job according to specifications but instead of action being taken against him the matter was being hushed up. On December 24, 1964, the Chief Engineer, Western Command, Simla, passed an order transferring the appellant from CWE Chandigarh to CE, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, Delhi Cantt. The order was required to be complied forthwith. On January 8, 1965, the appellant submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer requesting the cancellation of the order of transfer as he had two daughters studying at Chandigarh, one in a College and the other in a School. On February 6, 1965, he sought a personal interview and followed it up with further representations on February 19, 1965 and February 23, 1965. In the letter dated February 23, 1965, he mentioned that if it was not possible for him to be retained at Chandigarh he might be granted leave preparatory to retirement. Meanwhile on February 13, 1965, the Chief Engineer, North Western Zone addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer, Western Command that the appellant had been 'struck off the strength', that the appellant's action showed indiscipline and that it should be reflected 'in his report'. On June 10, 1965, the appellant wrote to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone that he was not willing to accept any 'movement order' and that he had applied for leave preparatory to retirement as his circumstances did not permit him to continue in service any further. On September 16, 1965 the Chief Engineer, Western Command informed the Engineer-in-Chief that disciplinary action should be initiated against the appellant. On January 29, 1966, the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone wrote to the appellant informing him that under Art. 189 of the Civil Services Regulations he no longer had any lien on his appointment and advising him in his own interest, to resume duty by February 15th, at least. To this the appellant sent a reply on March 1, 1966, stating that as a consequence of his letter dated June 10, 1965, he must be considered to have retired on October 9, 1965. Apparently the appellant was construing his letter dated June 10, 1965 as notice to the Government of his desire to retire from service and, further, he was also under the impression that four months' notice was necessary. Thereafter on May 30, 1966, the Chief Engineer Western Command addressed a communication to the Chief Engineer, Delhi and Rajasthan Zone, paragraph 4 of which is important and is as follows:

(2.) Shri R. K. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant, very rightly in our opinion gave up the claim for arrears of salary and confined his submission to the claim for pension and gratuity. He submitted that the worst that could be said against the appellant was that he absented himself from duty without leave. A disciplinary proceeding could have been initiated and he could have been punished but no such thing was done. There was never any enquiry and there was no order, passed after notice to him, visiting him with the penalty of forfeiture of past service. He submitted that there was no provision in the Civil Service Regulations which enabled the Government to withhold his pension and gratuity without taking disciplinary action against him. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on Articles 189 and 420 of the Civil Service Regulations in support of the action withholding pension and gratuity to the appellant. Articles 189, 420, 458, 352 and 353 are relevant and they are as follows: