PRABHUDAN CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was Forester, has filed this writ petition with the allegation that he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement under Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 with effect from May 26, 1988. This application was accepted and he was retired with effect from May 26, 1988, by order, Annexure-1 of the same date. A few days before his voluntary retirement, a notice under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was issued to the petitioner as well as Shri Shanker Singh, by the Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry, Ajmer. This notice contained the allegation that the petitioner had kept 16 Cattle Guards without any justification for a period from December 1986 to 1988 and thereby caused unnecessary monetary loss to the Government amounting to Rs. 73,216/ -. The petitioner has submitted reply to this charge- sheet on May 26, 1988, in which he stated that he had taken charge from Shri Shanker Singh on April 15, 1987 and gave details of 40 Cattle Gaurds, who were working at that time and he had requested the Forest Extension Officer, Bandanware to reduce the number of the Cattle Guards, who said that he was not in a position to remove any Cattle Guard without the order of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forestry Department, Ajmer. On May 26, 1988 itself, the Conservator of Forests issued an order holding the petitioner guilty of misusing the Government money and ordered recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,355/ -. The petitioner preferred an appeal on August 22, 1988 against the order of punishment dated May 26, 1988. This appeal has not been decided for a period of more than one year and the petitioner has not been paid the amount of gratuity, State Insurance and other emoluments. The petitioner has stated that reminders have been given to the authorities, but without any result. According to the petitioner under Rule 305-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the gratuity became payable to the petitioner on the date of his retirement and the petitioner is entitled to interest after a period of 3 months.

(2.) A show-cause notice was issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why this writ petition should not be admitted. In response to the show-cause notice, a reply has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have stated that charge-sheet was given to the petitioner and Shri Shanker Singh. After considering the reply, order of punishment was passed because the charge had been found established against the petitioner. The respondents have admitted the pendency of appeal, but have submitted that the petitioner has approached this court in hot-haste. He has been paid his pension vide order dated December 30, 1989 and after deduction of a sum of Rs. 31,355/- the gratuity amount of Rs. 7720/- is payable to the petitioner. The amount of State Insurance has already been paid to the petitioner vide order dated November 17, 1989.

(3.) I have heard Shri B. L. Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri K. N. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate.