AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of service benefits to the petitioner as
admissible w.e.f. 15/3/2012 with interest @ 9% p.a. and a direction to communicate the decision on the charge sheet dated 29/4/2015 to the petitioner
and if the charge sheet is still pending then a direction be issued to expedite the proceedings and decide the same within a short period.
From the record, it appears that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from service by an application dated 11/10/2011 w.e.f. 15/1/2012, which
application was rejected by order dated 30/12/2011 indicating that the proceedings were pending against him. Again by communication dated 8/1/2012
the petitioner sought to resign from the service of the State w.e.f. 15/1/2012, which prayer was reiterated by application dated 12/1/2012 (Annex.1)
seeking to resign from service w.e.f. 15/3/2012. The application dated 8/1/2012 seeking to resign from the service was rejected by order dated
13/1/2012.
The petitioner aggrieved by the said rejection filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6679/2015, which came to be decided by order dated 27/8/2015,
whereby, while allowing the writ petition, following directions were passed:
“In this background, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annexure-5 dated 13.1.2012 is quashed and set
aside. The petitioner is deemed to have been voluntary retired w.e.f. 15.3.2012. All post retiral benefits accruing pursuant to voluntary retirement shall
be extended to the petitioner as per his entitlement within a period of two months from the date of submission of copy of this order. The stay
application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.â€
The State filed appeal against the order dated 27/8/2015, which appeal being D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.370/2016 was allowed with the following
observations:
“We have looked into the record, specially, the document Annex.4 dated 12.1.2012, an application that is treated by the learned Single Bench as an
application seeking voluntary retirement. In the application aforesaid after referring the details pertaining to the voluntary retirement submitted earlier
and rejection of that the respondent-petitioner stated that “because of the inaction at directorate level, I have not been voluntarily retired, therefore,
I am submitting resignation from government service from 15.3.2012. Please accept my resignation†(translated from vernacular). The contents
noticed above clearly indicate that the respondent-petitioner was aware of the difference between voluntary retirement and resignation from service.
His intention was only to tender resignation being failed to have voluntary retirement. The application dated 12.1.2012, as such, by no stretch of
imagination could have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement from service. The application is nothing but a desire to resign from
service w.e.f. 15.3.2012.
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Bench erred while treating the application dated 12.1.2012 as an
application seeking voluntary retirement and, therefore, wrongly accepted the petition for writ with a direction to treat the respondentpetitioner
voluntarily retired from 15.3.2012 with entitlement to have retiral benefits.
Accordingly, this appeal deserves acceptance, hence is allowed. The order passed by learned Single Bench dated 27.8.2015 in writ petition bearing
No.6679/2015 is set aside. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6679/2015 is dismissed. No order as to costs.â€
Whereafter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 10/9/2017 (Annex.4) seeking grant of service benefits till 15/3/2012 on the assumption that the Division
Bench has treated his application as resignation from service and as he has completed 17 years of service the benefits accrued to him may be
granted.
It also appears from the writ petition that during pendency of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6679/2015, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet
under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘the Rules, 1958’), however, only Memorandum
thereof has been produced on record as Annex.5.
The entire writ petition filed by the petitioner is on the assumption that as the application for seeking voluntary retirement from service was held as an
application for resignation by the Division Bench, the petitioner was entitled for grant of service benefits whatsoever admissible based on the such
resignation and a grievance has been made that respondents were not providing the said service benefits to the petitioner.
Though no reference of the Memorandum dated 29/4/2015 has been made in the averments of the writ petition, in the grounds it has been indicated
that the charge sheet has not been served on the petitioner and based on the above, submissions have been made and relief claimed in the writ
petition.
A perusal of the entire record would indicate that the petitioner is seeking to distort the facts. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6679/2015 was filed
questioning the validity of the order dated 13/1/2012 on the ground that petitioner’s prayer for seeking voluntary retirement had been rejected by
the respondents, which writ petition was accepted and order dated 13/1/2012 was quashed and it was ordered that the petitioner is deemed to have
retired w.e.f. 15/3/2012 and was entitled to benefits arising from such voluntary retirement. However, the Division Bench by its judgment dated
25/8/2015 set aside the order dated 27/8/2015 and rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioner, result there being that neither the voluntary
retirement as claimed by the petitioner was accepted nor the finding of the Division Bench regarding the application being that of resignation by itself
could result in acceptance of resignation, as by order dated 13/1/2012 prayer for resignation was specifically rejected. Further proceedings under Rule
16 of the Rules, 1958 also appear to be pending against the petitioner.
In view of the above circumstances, the reliefs which have been claimed in the writ petition based on the assumption that the resignation of the
petitioner stood accepted w.e.f. 15/3/2012 are totally baseless and as observed hereinbefore are mere distortion of facts on part of the petitioner and
in view thereof the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, in case any disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum dated
29/4/2015 are still pending against the petitioner, the respondents are expected to deal with the same most expeditiously.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondents forthwith.