F S VIRDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It all started in the year 1970. That was the year when the petitioner before us who was working as an Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs was posted in the office of High Commission of India at London. It was a tenure posting of three years. On completion of his tenure, he was sent a communication dated 12th March, 1974 informing him that his substitute having been selected, he should keep himself in readiness to come back to India. On receiving this communication, he rather than preparing himself for a journey homeward made a representation dated 13th March, 1974 requesting the department for extending his term in the High Commission till July, 1974 on the ground that his children were in the middle of their academic session. The request was turned down, and consequent thereto, vide office order dated 30th May, 1974 he was relieved of his duties in the High Commission with effect from 29th May, 1974. He however was not prepared to come back.

(2.) On 30th May, 1974, he sent a letter requesting the department to grant him 32 days ex-India leave. This request too was declined. Faced with this, he submitted an application dated 1st September, 1974 seeking premature retirement and in that application itself, he tendered three months notice which he was required to give as per the requirement of Ministry of Finance Notification No.7(IV)-EV/67-11 dated 9th May, 1969. He also made a request to grant him ex-India leave on full pay preparatory to retirement. The department did accede to his request for voluntary retirement but not in the manner requested by him. It firstly proceeded to hold an inquiry against him as per the procedure laid down in Rules 14, 15, and 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the 'Rules of 1965') on the allegation, that he wilfully remained absent from duty with effect from 30th May, 1974. However, no inquiry as contemplated was held, as according to the department, he had deliberately given a wrong address to the High Commission of India at London for which reason communications sent to him by registered post came back undelivered and despite all reasonable efforts made by the Commission, his correct address could not be ascertained. In these circumstances, it was not found practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner prescribed in Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1965, and accordingly, it was decided to take action against him under Rule 19(ii) of the said Rules which permits the disciplinary authority to dispense with the holding of an inquiry provided the Union Public Service Commission has been consulted where such consultation is necessary. The said rule also authorises the disciplinary authority to consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders therein as it deems fit. Having regard to the this rule and on a careful consideration of the facts of the case in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, the petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct on account of his absence from duty from 30th May, 1974 to 31st December, 1974and also for disobedience of the Government's order transferring him from the High Commission of India, London, to the Headquarters of the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. Consequently, the President in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Rule 9(i) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called the 'Pension Rules') ordered permanent withholding of entire pensionary benefits admissible to the petitioner. However, he was taken to have retired from service with effect from 22nd December, 1974 i.e. on the expiry of three months from the date of service of notice of voluntary retirement.

(3.) The above order by the President was passed on 17th August, 1976 inviting in its wake another representation from the petitioner dated 30th October, 1978. Consequent thereto, the department after taking into account all factors relevant to the case modified its order dated 17th August, 1976 to the extent that his death-cum-retirement gratuity was ordered to be released. This was done by order dated 22nd May, 1979. The petitioner was still not satisfied and understandably, the order permanently withholding his pensionary benefits was staring him at his face. It was not revoked. He, therefore, continued to make representations and it appears that in one of the representations dated 3rd March, 1983, he made a grievance that his representation dated 14th May, 1979 was not considered. The department responding to the same wrote to him on 3rd March, 1983 informing him that it was after consideration of the facts of the case and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission that it was decided to release his death-cum-retirement gratuity and that while taking this decision, his representation dated 14th May, 1979 was also considered carefully.