RISHI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issuance of directions to the respondents to release all the remaining retiral benefits. The petitioner joined as Patwari with the Revenue department on 24.11.1984. He was promoted as Field Kanungo on 01.07.1991. He was further promoted as Naib Tehsildar on 01.01.1996. Thereafter, he was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on 11.10.2002 by the respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 14.11.2002. The inquiry officer submitted detailed inquiry report in the office of respondent No.2 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved and a minor mistake or error has been committed by him. The petitioner during his suspension retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2006.

(2.) The respondent No.2 had filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on 10.11.2006. On 03.12.2007, the respondent No.1 issued show cause notice to the petitioner to impose a cut of 10% on the pension of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 thereafter on 10.07.2008 decided to drop the show cause notice and further ordered that all retiral benefits i.e. full pension and gratuity may be released. In case FIR No.20 dated 12.10.2000 the petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 418 & 120-B IPC but acquitted for offences under Section 13(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under the order of quantum of sentence, the Special Judge instead of sentencing the petitioner released him on probation for good conduct in terms of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for one year without supervision. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.7440 of 2010 which was disposed of on 27.04.2010 with a direction to the competent authority to take decision on the representation of legal notice served by the petitioner within three months. The dispute in this case has admittedly now narrowed down to the issue of consideration of the period of suspension of the petitioner.

(3.) In the written statement, it has been mentioned as follows:-