L R DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was taken up in the past on more than one occasion but none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner. To-day also no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, that is no ground to adjourn the hearing of the case, which has already remained pending for last more than nine years. Whether by abstaining from the proceedings of the court, the learned counsel has discharged moral and ethical obligation towards his client is a matter for the learned counsel to decide. However, the constitutional duty imposed on the Court has to be discharged by it irrespective of the appearance/non-appearance of the learned counsel and the litigant cannot be made to suffer due to neglect of his case by the learned counsel. The petitioner, who retired from service some 12 years and 10 months ago after rendering 31 years of service, was not paid his pension, gratuity and other retirement dues compelling him to seek intervention of this Court for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to sanction full pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and also allow him commutation of pension. He also prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the market rate, i.e. 18 per cent per annum.

(2.) In their reply, the respondents have stated that full pension has been released to the petitioner by the Accountant General, Haryana vide Memo No. Pen-III/L-19/83-84/6141-44 dated 14.11.1986. It has also been stated by the respondent that fifty per cent of the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable to the petitioner has also been released by the Accountant General vide Memo No. Pen-II/L-19/83-84/52898/6326-29 dated 19.11.1996. The reason given for withholding of the remaining amount of the gratuity is the pending departmental inquiry which, according to the respondents, had been initiated against the petitioner under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, read with Rule 11.1 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II. Respondents have also referred to the initiation of an inquiry against the petitioner in respect of alleged delinquency committed by him while working on deputation with the Haryana State Co-operative Marketing and Supplying Federation Ltd.

(3.) In his replication, the petitioner has stated that the inquiry initiated in respect of the alleged delinquency committed by the petitioner during his working with respondent No. 3 has been dropped. Regarding the inquiry initiated by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner has stated that no charge- sheet was served upon him but a notice has been published in the daily Tribune dated 22.12.1986 indicating that the proceedings have been initiated against him under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II and this inquiry related to the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his working in the Construction Sub-Division-II, Rohtak (August, 1982 to January, 1983). The petitioner has stated that although he submitted an application in writing on 29.12.1986 for supply of copy of the charge-sheet but the respondents have not made available copy of the charge-sheet to him.