SAHADEV RAMA GADLING Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties Heard finally.

(2.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the denial of pension to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has not completed ten years of continuous service, on account of the period of suspension undergone by the Petitioner, which was with effect from 2/6/2005 to 4/1/2005 being a period of about 7 months and 2 days. The Petitioner has contended that such period of suspension was required to be reckoned to consider the Petitioner eligible for grant of pension in view of specific provisions of Rule 23 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ('CCS Pension Rules) read with clarificatory Office Memorandum No.F 11(3)-E.V (A)76, dtd. 28/2/1976. This inasmuch as no specific order was passed to that as period of suspension be excluded from the qualifying service. Hence it was deemed that the period of suspension necessarily was to be taken into consideration and counted in the qualifying service, is the Petitioner's case.

(3.) The relevant facts are required to be noted. The Petitioner was initially appointed as X-ray Technician by the Respondent/Deolali Cantonment on 7/5/1985. However, on 6/12/1985 the Petitioner resigned from the said service. There was a fresh advertisement which was issued in the year 1985 inviting applications for the post of X-ray Technician. The Petitioner participated in the selection process and was issued an appointment order dtd. 8/11/1985. It appears to be not in dispute that from the date of joining i.e. 8/11/1995 up to 2/6/2005 which a period of almost 9 years 6 months, there was no grievance in regard to the Petitioner smoothly discharging his duties. However, there was an incident which occurred in the month of June-2005 in which it was alleged that in the discharge of his duties, the Petitioner misbehaved with a poor pregnant lady patient, under the pretext that the internal examination of womb is to be carried out. He undertook the internal examination in absence of Lady Doctor and Sonologist. It was alleged that the Petitioner misbehaved with her amounting to a misconduct. The Petitioner pending a departmental inquiry was placed under suspension on 2/6/2005. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the Petitioner on 9/6/2005 as per the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The departmental inquiry culminated into a punishment of compulsory retirement being imposed on the Petitioner vide order dtd. 4/1/2005. The departmental appeal against the order of compulsory retirement could not succeed and ultimately after having accepted the decision of the Labour Court dtd. 9/7/2014, the Petitioner appears to have accepted the decision of his compulsory retirement.