SURENDRA KUMAR VYAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief: - -

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the petitioner was serving as a U.D.C. in the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan and was posted at Chittorgarh District at the relevant point of time. He was placed under suspension by order dated 10.10.1995 on account of registration of a criminal case against him under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and various offences under the Indian Penal Code. After undergoing trial, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial court by judgment dated 6.6.2009. Pursuant to his acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 9.7.2009 and simultaneously, the suspension order issued against the petitioner was also revoked. He rejoined duty under the Block Chief Medical & Health Officer, Begun Dist. Chittorgarh whereafter he was transferred to Rajsamand by order dated 22.7.2009. By that time, the petitioner's superannuation age was approaching, and thus an order Annexure -4 came to be passed on 31.7.2009 to the effect that the petitioner would be superannuated from Government service on completing 60 years' age on 30.9.2009. A note was appended below the said order depicting that a departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Ultimately on 30.9.2009 another order Annexure -5 was issued whereby the petitioner was retired from service on completing 60 years of age reiterating that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. It is asserted in the instant writ petition that the pursuant to the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case, the respondents are not entitled to withhold any of the service and monetary benefits accruing to him because such benefits are incidental to service and have to be extended to a Government employee as of right upon his superannuation. He referred to the order Annexure -8 dated 26.10.2007, as per which, the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was closed and dropped when the matter was taken over by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh. The above order clearly indicates that thereafter, no departmental proceeding whatsoever remained in currency against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted numerous representations to the departmental authorities to inform him of the departmental proceedings, if any, still pending against him. The said communications were not responded to. The petitioner also gave a legal notice Annexure -11 to the authority demanding to be intimated of details of the alleged disciplinary proceedings pending against him and if not, then to make the payment of his due service and retiral benefits but the same did not yield the desired result. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in unjustly withholding his service and retiral benefits and for expunging the note appended at the bottom of the orders Annexure 4 and 5 that departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is relevant to mention here that in the reply, the specific assertion made by the petitioner in the writ petition that no departmental inquiry is pending against him is not controverted.