M.G. Tandel vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(A) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) Be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the pension at the rate of Rs. 4800/- instead of Rs. 4000/- and consequentional benefit with arrears from 17.5.99 till the final out come of this petition and further direct the respondent authority continue to pay the regular pension fully at the rate of Rs. 4800/- to the petitioner.

(C) Be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay of the regular pension at the rate of Rs. 4800/- instead of Rs. 4000/-and as per the communication dated 5.4.99 and 7.4.99 till the final outcome of decision.

The brief facts of the present petition are as under:

1.1 The petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk at the Primary Health Centre, Kharwan, Taluka Mahuva, District Surat. On account of the initiation of certain criminal proceedings against him, the petitioner was suspended from service vide order dated 03.06.1988. In connection with the same, a charge-sheet was issued to him and departmental inquiry was initiated.

1.2 After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 25.05.1992, wherein, out of the five charges, three charges were held to be proved. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case pending against him.

1.3 In 1999, the District Development Officer, Surat passed an order dated 20.03.1999, revoking the suspension of the petitioner and reinstated him as a Senior Clerk at the Surat Sub-division. Thereafter, an order dated 17.05.1999 came to be passed by which a penalty of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum pay-scale was imposed. The period of suspension was treated as break in service vide order dated 24.06.1999. The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.1999.

1.4 After his retirement, the petitioner preferred two appeals before the respondent No. 1 authority challenging the order dated 17.05.1999 and 24.06.1999 passed by the District Development Officer, Surat. It is the say of the petitioner that since respondent No. 1 - authority had not decided the said two appeals and his pension/gratuity were also not fixed, he had filed S.C.A. No. 4160/2000 before this Court.

1.5 The said petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2000 with a direction to decide both the appeals on merit and to fix the provisional pension in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Vivad Application No. 20/2000 challenging the order dated 17.05.1999.

1.6 However, the said application was rejected by the respondent - authority vide order dated 15.07.2000. The petitioner had also preferred another application challenging the order dated 24.06.1999. However, the said application was also rejected vide order dated 15.07.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order/s, petitioner has preferred Special Civil Application which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.1.2009.

The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in reducing the pension of the petitioner from Rs. 4,800/- to Rs. 4,000/-.

An affidavit-in-reply is filed by District Development officer, wherein, in para Nos. 3, 4 and 5, it is specifically explained the situation of fixing the pension, which reads as under:

At the outset, I say and submit that the petitioner is not entitled to get any of the relief, because the Hon''ble Court has already passed the order on 22.1.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 11467 of 2000 by which both the orders passed by the Panchayat putting him on minimum pay scale as well as not regularizing suspension order are declared legal and valid. Now the petitioner cannot pray that he should be given pension at the rate of Rs. 4800/- instead of Rs. 4000/-. Therefore, the petition is required to be rejected.

I say and submit that the petitioner was working as Sr. Clerk and in the year 1995-96 he has tampered with the signature of his Competent Authority and misappropriated the amount and therefore, on 3.6.1988 he was put under suspension. In the meanwhile, the criminal proceedings were also initiated against him. On 23.3.99, he was reinstated in the service, as he was acquitted by the Criminal Court by giving him benefit of doubt. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was initiated against him and on 17.5.1999 he was put on minimum pay scale. On 21.6.1999 the petitioner was retired at the age of superannuation and the suspension period from 3.6.1988 to 20.3.1998 was regularized and he was not treated as on duty during this period. Earlier the provisional pension was given as per the order of the Hon''ble Court. But thereafter on 10.7.2001 his pension case was finalized and whatever pension is given is just, legal and proper.

In that view of the matter, petitioner was put to minimum pay scale and suspension period was not regularized. In my view, decision taken by the authority is just and proper. Hence, petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.