SAMATSINGH G. RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Range Forest Officer (as he then was) of the Forest Department of the Government of Gujarat filed this Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents, directing them to pay to the petitioner the amount of G.P.F. accumulated in his Account No. PGJU/71 and the amount of pension payable to him from 1.1.1985, and to go on paying the same month to month and the arrears during the period; and the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner for the period during which he was on sick leave, before his retirement.

(2.) The petitioner entered into the Government service when he was appointed as Bid Guard on 1st Oct., 1949. Thereafter he was promoted to the next higher post and, ultimately, he came to be promoted to the post of Range Forest Officer on 27.7.1984. The petitioner gave a notice for his voluntary retirement, seeking it from 1.1.1985. The voluntary retirement was sought, as per what the petitioner has contended in the Special Civil Application, on the ground of his ill-health. From the facts which have been stated in the memo of the petition, it comes out that the petitioner was on leave, may be on the medical ground, from 16th Dec., 1982 to 3rd May, 1984 and again from 17.8.1984 to 31.12.1984. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he had given a notice for his voluntary retirement from 1.1.1985, yet he has not been informed anything in the matter till the lapse of the period of three months and, therefore, he acquired a right of voluntary retirement with effect from 1.1.1985. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that he stood voluntarily retired from 1.1.1985, he has not been given the retirement benefits, though he made the application in this respect to respondent No. 1 and, hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.

(3.) This Special Civil Application is contested by the respondents. They filed a detailed affidavit in reply. The defence of the respondents in the reply, briefly stated, is as follows. The first plea that has been taken is that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed material facts before this Court. According to the respondents, a Departmental Inquiry was pending against the petitioner for the grave misconduct of misappropriation of Government money and for preparing bogus vouchers. A charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner. Besides, a criminal case was also filed against the petitioner for the charges of corruption by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. In view of the above facts, the petitioner, what the respondents urged in the reply, was not allowed to retire voluntarily and a decision in that regard was taken by the Chief Conservator of Forests, who vide his letter dated 19th Feb., 1985 informed the Conservator of Forests about the refusal to grant permission to the petitioner for the voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner was also informed of this fact by the Deputy Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 8.3.1985. Another plea which has been taken is that the petitioner should have resumed his duties and then he could have applied for voluntary retirement; but instead of resuming his duties, he conveniently avoided the same under the guise of medical difficulties and sent the notice for his voluntary retirement.