MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANOHAR Lal has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders, dated May 22, 1978, of his dismissal and a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to finalize his case regarding the payment of pension and gratuity and other reliefs to which he is entitled.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined service as a Teacher in a Government Primary School on November 25, 1952. On September 22, 1975, a charge sheet was served on the Petitioner in 'which' it was alleged that he had made a false statement in his application for employment regarding his qualification and experience. On November 6, 1976, the Petitioner attained the age of 55 years. On May 12, 1977, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs, 1,831.50 in the Punjab Treasury, Chandigarh, which sum represented his three months salary in lieu of three months notice. On the same day he gave a notice to the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab, intimating him that the Petitioner had attained the age of 56 years. In accordance with the Punjab Civil Service Rules he had deposited three months' pay in the Treasury in lieu of notice. He should be deemed to have retired from service with effect from May 12, 1977, and his papers for pension, gratuity, etc., may be prepared immediately (A copy of the notice is Annexure P -2). The Petitioner received a letter, dated May 13, 1977, from the Block Education Officer, Jullundur (West I) informing him that the copy of his letter, dated May 12, 1977, addressed to the Director of Public Instruction, Punjab, Chandigarh, has been endorsed to him. The Petitioner was requested to supply a duplicate copy of the challan form verified by the Bank Manager to that office so that the department may be approached for further necessary action. The Petitioner was requested to appear in the school in connection with the handing over of his charge. (A copy of the letter is appended as Annexure P -3). On May 13, 1977, the above officer directed Shri Sukhdarshan Singh, Teacher, Primary School, Bajra, to take over charge from Shri Manohar Lal, Teacher, who had resigned from service with effect from May 12, 1977, and a report to this effect should be sent to that office so that necessary action may be taken. Consequently a charge report was prepared on May, 14, 1977, evidencing that Shri Sukhdarshan Singh, Teacher, had taken over from Shri Manohar Lal and no school articles are outstanding against him, nor is there any amount due from him. This report is signed by Shri Sukhdarshan Singh, Teacher, the Head Master and the Petitioner. (A copy of the same is Annexure P -5). Vide Annexure P -6 Smt. Gurdeep Kaur, Teacher, working in the Primary School, Hussainpur, was adjusted in the Government Primary School, Bajra against the vacancy caused by the Petitioner's. retirement.

(3.) IN the reply filed by Shri Gurdev Singh Joshi, Deputy District Primary Education Officer, Jullundur, it has, been admitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a Teacher on November 25, 1952 and he attained the age of 55 years on November 6, 1976. It was averred that he was served with a show cause notice for dismissal from service on February 18, 1977. Instead of giving any reply to the show cause notice, the Petitioner on his own volition, deposited Rs. 1,831.50 in lieu of three months' notice and considered himself as retired from Government service. He was never permitted by the competent authority to retire from service as required under Rule 5.32 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. There is no provision in the rules under which a Government servant can consider himself as retired from service by depositing three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice. The fact is that he wanted to avoid extreme punishment of dismissal from service. It was admitted that the charge of the school articles and other records was taken from the Petitioner but it was never intended to retire the Petitioner from service. It was apprehended that the Petitioner might destroy the record kept in his custody. So, it was considered safe to take over important school record, including account books and other material which was under his charge. He stopped attending his duty wilfully. It was considered necessary to make arrangement in his place. He was never formally relieved of his duty because disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. It was reiterated that the Petitioner was never allowed to retire from Government service, rather he was dismissed from Government service with effect from May 12, 1977, under the orders of the competent Authority. A dismissed Government employee cannot be allowed the benefits of pension, gratuity, et cetera.