UNION OF INDIA Vs. S S AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. -1014/2000: The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 311/2000 Admit. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 3, 2000 whereby the appellants herein were directed inter alia 'to reinstate the respondent who was allowed to retire voluntarily from service. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

(2.) The respondent served the Army as a Commissioned Officer for a period of about seven years from 1966 till July 15,1973 when he was selected as Deputy Superin- tendent of Police in C.R.P.F. On August 3,1983, the respondent was promoted as As- sistant Commandant in the C.R.P.F. Subsequently, in August 1990 he earned a further promotion as Second in Command. After serving for a period of about twenty years in the C.R.P.F. the respondent on March 15, 1993 sought voluntary retirement by giving a three months' notice under Rule 43(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, to the competent authority. However, before the expirty of the period of three months, a charge memo was issued by the Deputy Director (Establishment) on May 13, 1993 for imposition of a minor penalty on the respondent. Thereafter, on July 13, 1993 the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement was rejected by the competent authority and at the same time it was directed that major penalty proceedings be initiated against him as the charges in the opinion of the competent authority were of a serious nature. Thereafter, the respondent, on August 10, 1993 sent a representation to the Home Minister requesting him to re-examine his request for voluntary retirement. This evoked no response from the Home Minister. On February 4, 1994, a memo was issued by the office of the Director General, C.R.P.F., to the respondent calling upon him to submit within ten days of the receipt thereof a written statement of his defence to the articles of charge. He was also informed that enquiry will be held in respect of those charges as are not admitted.

(3.) On February 23,1994, the competent authority contrary to the original stand accepted the request of the respondent and allowed him to proceed on voluntary retirement with a specific stipulation that his voluntary retirement would be without prejudice to the major penalty proceedings initiated against him. Thereupon, on March 2, 1994, the respondent handed over the charge and proceeded on voluntary retirement. Subsequently being not satisfied with the order directing initiation of major penalty proceedings against him, the respondent on September 12,1994 filed a representation to the concerned authority inter alia stating that since in the eye of law he had retired w.e.f. July 1,1993, orders dated February 23,1994 accepting his voluntary retirement with a rider to continue major penalty proceedings was illegal, unjust and arbitrary.