RAMESHWAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Medical Doctor in PCMS. He was born in 1949 and that makes him about 66 years of age today. He had not put in 20 years of actual service in PCMS when he sought voluntary retirement on December 10, 1997. The petitioner joined PCMS on March 27, 1975. In his application a copy of which has been placed as Annexure P-3 with the petition, the petitioner while applying for voluntary retirement made a statement that he is in service for more than 20 years. It is not incorrect as he had put in 22 years span of service but had not reached the age of 50 to seek premature retirement which would have entitled him to pension other than superannuation pension. In his request letter, he prayed that not only should his request for voluntary retirement be accepted but he be also granted proportionate pension. It appears that the petitioner having made his request for voluntary retirement did not return to work and remained absent without receiving an order on the request passed by the competent authority. Since the relationship of employment was not snapped it continued as no orders were passed on Annexure P-3. He would be deemed to be in service for purposes of disciplinary action for willful absence from duty.

(2.) Consequently, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for major misconduct. The charge was of absence from duty without permission w.e.f. April 23, 1993 and getting his leave sanctioned and also for non-compliance of orders passed by the superior officers. It now appears plain that he had already remained absent from duty in the past for long spells when he made the request for voluntary retirement on December 10, 1997 and, therefore, he had not physically put in 20 years of continuous service entitling him to claim pension. The charge-sheet was issued on June 15, 1999. The inquiry officer afforded full opportunity to the Medical Doctor to plead his defence but the petitioner did not appear before the inquiry officer and he was proceeded ex parte and ex parte report was submitted to the disciplinary authority who agreed with the findings and took a decision proposing dismissal of the Doctor from service for unauthorized absence from duty which was viewed as a grave act of misconduct. The Government even sought approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission for action contemplated and on approval being conveyed vide letter dated June 01, 1999, The Governor of Punjab was pleased to agree with the report of the inquiry officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. The order was issued by the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, Punjab as a decision of the Government of Punjab.

(3.) Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred CWP No.7790 of 2000 challenging the same. It was urged that the leave application of the petitioner was not considered. It was given out by the petitioner before the Division Bench which dismissed the petition in limine that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated July 07, 1999 which is not an order of suspension but an order of dismissal. The Court was made to fall to view that since the order of "suspension" was not challenged it was not possible to quash the order dated December 03, 1999 [which is not made part of the record of the present paper book].