PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Pardeep Kumar petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the respondents seeking directions of this Court against the respondents that they should treat him as having been voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31.3.1993 and directions be also given to the respondents to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner has further made a prayer that charge-sheet served upon him on 27.10.1994 be quashed treating it as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in the Office of Executive Engineer West Jamuna, Karnal on 2.9.1971 and he continued working there up to 1974. Later on he was transferred to Loharu Canal Circle, Bhiwani. He was promoted as a Sub Divisional Clerk and later on as Accounts Clerk but thereafter, on account of some misunderstanding respondent No. 2 started harassing the petitioner and he was placed under suspension with effect from 8.6.1988. He was reinstated into service on 24.2.1989 but he was not permitted to join the duties, as a result of which he had to come to the High Court in Civil Writ Petition and by virtue of the orders of the High Court, the petitioner was allowed to resume the duties with the further directions to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay-scales with effect from 1.1.1986. Resultantly, the petitioner was posted in Central Mechanical Division, Charkhi Dadri but he was not allowed to take charge against the post on Accounts Clerk. Salary was also not fixed. Respondent No. 3 was inimical towards the petitioner and, therefore, with a malafide intention he intimated to the petitioner on 8.6.1991 that he had failed to join the duties, therefore, he would be treated absent from duty and action would be taken against him. The petitioner made a representation that he had been visiting the office in order to do the work but he was not allowed to join the duty. Later on, respondents No. 2 and 3 joined hands and got the petitioner transferred from Charkhi Dadri to Narnaul with a malafide intention. The petitioner was fed up with the behaviour of the respondents. Finally the petitioner wrote to the respondents that he wanted to seek voluntary retirement. He wrote a letter dated 22.6.1992 to respondent No. 2 that he was ready to withdraw and drop all proceedings against the Govt. in case he is allowed to retire voluntarily by recognising his service of 21 years and additional benefit of five years be given to him. He prayed that the letter may be treated as notice of his retirement and he may be retired with effect from 31.12.1991. When the petitioner wrote a latter to the respondents for voluntary retirement there was no charge-sheet of (or) departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the petitioner wrote to the respondents with his intention for voluntary retirement, the respondents did not take any action even after 22.6.1992. The petitioner again wrote a letter dated 24.12.1992 to the same effect but no decision was conveyed to the petitioner. He categorically stated that the petitioner shall be deemed to have retired with effect from 31.3.1993 but no reply was received. According to the Government Rules, on the expiry of three months a public servant shall be deemed to have retired from services but the petitioner was shocked to receive a letter dated 27.10.1994 from respondent No. 3 vide which a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner containing allegations that he remained absent from duty from 3.5.1991 to 9.8.1991 onwards and that the petitioner has disobeyed the orders of the Executive Engineer, Central Mechanical Division, Charkhi Dadri and Superintending Engineer Loharu Circle Bhiwani. The petitioner was directed to submit the reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner gave the reply stating that memorandum of charge-sheet could not be served upon him at this belated stage during the end of 1994 when the petitioner had offered to seek voluntary retirement by giving advance notice of three months on 24.12.1992 and also that the petitioner is deemed to have retired from service on 31.3.1993. The case set up by the petitioner in short is that he will be deemed to have retired from service with effect from 31.3.1993 and till that date, there was no charge-sheet served upon him and, therefore, the subsequent charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 27.10.1994 is without jurisdiction, illegal and against the rules and such charge-sheet cannot stand in the way of the petitioner who had sought voluntary retirement through his letter dated 24.12.1992. The petitioner has further made a prayer that he may also be granted the benefit of revised pay scales etc.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioner remained absent from duty since 3.5.1991. The petitioner was posted in Central Mechanical Division, Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 19.2.1991 and the petitioner submitted his joining report on the same day. The petitioner was unwilling worker. He became absent from duty with effect from 3.5.1991 and had not reported for duty so far in spite of the fact that a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeals Rules, 1987 has been served to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the pensionary benefits because he has not put in minimum 20 years qualifying service which is required for voluntary retirement.