UOI Vs. S S AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 20.12.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) Nos. 637/96, 2169/97 and 638/96. The respondent Shri S.S.Ahluwalia served the Army as well as Central Reserve Police Force for 25 years, 2 months and 7 days. On 15.3.93 he applied for voluntary retirement and in this regard gave notice under Rule 43(d) of CRPF Rules, 1955. His request for voluntary retirement was not acceded to and consequently the same was rejected by the appellant on 13.7.93. The respondent made representations dated 30.7.1993 and 10.8.1993 for reconsideration of his request for voluntary retirement. His request for reconsideration did find favour with the appellant on 23.2.94 but it was not without pre-condition, in as much as, he was informed that proceedings for major penalty would be initiated against him notwithstanding acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. At this stage it will be relevant to notice that initially vide Presidential Memorandum dated 13.5.93 Memo of Charge was issued against the respondent for imposition of minor penalty under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. Later on it was decided to drop the proceeding under Rule 16 of the said Rules, and instead on the same charges proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules were initiated.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court Shri K.Ramamoorthy on the basis of the facts as noticed above observed that request of the respondent for voluntary retirement was accepted much after the expiry of the notice period given by him which expired on 1.7.93 and even when the request was accepted it was without prejudice to the major penalty proceedings. This caused immense prejudice to the respondent who was initially issued a charge-sheet for minor penalty but when his request for voluntary retirement was ultimately acceded to in 1994 the same charges were converted into major penalty charges which culminated in order dated 17.3.97 whereby, cut in his pension was imposed. The learned Single Judge discussed all the charges in detail which we need not repeat in this order and found them to be trivial in nature. The order dated 17.3.97 was held to be based on no evidence acceptable in law and it was observed that the order passed was based on conjectures and surmises. It was further held that the allegations levelled against the respondent, especially, when he had submitted his voluntary retirement application on 15.3.93 smacked of total arbitrariness on the part of the appellant. It was ultimately held by the learned Single Judge that the action of the appellant in not accepting the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement on the expiry of notice period and subsequently accepting the same with the rider that major penalty proceedings would be initiated against him completely ruined his life. Consequently the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including salary and promotion.

(3.) The appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. It appears that the learned Single Judge Shri K.Ramamoorthy rendered the judgment in the absence of counter affidavit from the Union of India and had also by his judgment disposed of writ petition No.2169/1997 which was not even listed on that day. The Letters Patent Appeal was therefore allowed and was remanded back for fresh decision in accordance with law. The matter on remand was heard by another Learned Single Judge. The said learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 20.12.2001 after considering the facts and submissions independently arrived at the same conclusion which was arrived at by Hon'ble Justice K.Ramamoorthy. It was held that Justice K.Ramamoorthy correctly observed that a bare reading of the memo issued to the respondent would show that all the charges against him were trivial in nature and that the memo issued to him was without any justification. It was further observed that the case of the respondent was one of extreme harassment. As a result the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service as was done by Hon'ble Justice K.Ramamoorthy.