MADAN SWAROOP SIMLOTE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment & order of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dated 8.12.2000 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to release him all post retrial benefits with interest which he had prayed for in appeal that was filed before the Tribunal.

(3.) Shri P.V. Calla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the petitioner was serving the respondents and when he was on the verge of retirement, he was required vide of the respondents dated 12.7.1999 to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,728/-. According to this order, said amount was sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner in case if same was not deposited on or before 15.9.1999. Petitioner represented against this order on 12.8.1999 and submitted that he is on the verge of retirement and during his entire service career, neither there is any adverse remarks in the service record nor he has been confronted with any disciplinary enquiry. However, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any notice for the alleged recovery was ever served upon him. It was alleged in the order that there were irregularities in purchase of Gabian Wire amounting to Rs. 1,28,378/- during the financial 1996-97. it was contended that it was not made known as to on what basis the respondents came to allege that the loss of Rs. 1,28,378/- was caused to the government. No enquiry was held inasmuch as, petitioner was not associated with any such enquiry. When the petitioner submitted representation, respondents by their letter dated 21.8.1999 asked the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 42,728/- on or before 15.9.1999, failing which, it was threatened that charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, "CCA 40 Rules") would be served upon him. Petitioner was due to retire as on 30.9.1999 therefore, in apprehension that in case he did not deposit the same, he would be served with the charge-sheet particularly when he is on the verge of retirement and in that circumstance, his service career shall be prejudicially effect, he deposited the said amount with the respondents vide cash challan on 9.9.1999. But, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, his retiral dues were not cleared though the government vide order dated 18.9.1999 issued a No Objection Certificate in his favour that neither any disciplinary enquiry was ever pending against him nor is pending. This NOC was addressed to the Joint Director of the Pension Department itself. But despite this communication of the government, when the pension department did not clear his retiral dues, petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that respondents submitted a U.O. Note regarding pendency of the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner regarding certain irregularities in purchase of certain items amounting to Rs.1,28,378/-pertaining to the year 1996-97 and he thus caused a huge loss to the government and, therefore, the respondents were justified in not releasing the due pensionary benefits to the petitioner untill and unless the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded. It was contended that the Tribunal erred in taking this as pending enquiry and on that basis dismissing the appeal directing the respondents to grant provisional pension to the petitioner and to expedite the pending disciplinary proceedings and finalise the same within two months.