Satish Kumar Sood vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length at admission stage.

The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Director in the Information and Public Relation Officer, Sri Ganganagar of the respondent-State, having been appointed as such, vide the order (Annex. 1) dated 15.04.1980, applied for seeking voluntary retirement from the service under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''Rules of 1996'') vide Annex. 2 dated 21.10.2013 to be effective from 01.08.2014. The said VRS application was accepted by the respondent, Joint Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide the order (Annex. 3) dated 30.01.2014 to be effective from 01.08.2014. Before the said effective date 01.08.2014, the acceptance order of VRS application was withdrawn by the said authority vide Annex. 7 dated 24.06.2014 and on the same day vide order (Annex. 8) dated 24.06.2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958.

The said impugned suspension order dated 24.06.2014 (Annex. 8) and the order dated 24.06.2014 (Annex. 7) withdrawing the acceptance order of VRS application, passed by the respondent No. 4, Joint Secretary, Information & Public Relations Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, are under challenge before this Court in the present writ petition.

Mr. C.S. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 provides for acceptance of said notice and minimum of three months'' notice in writing is to be given by the employee concerned. He submitted that in this respect that the Guidelines have also been issued for acceptance of such notice for VRS by the State Government, which are also quoted herein below and they envisage the withholding of such permission to voluntary retirement of a Government servant, in case where the Government servant is under suspension or in whose case disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service, and in whose case the prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. The aforesaid Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 and the guidelines to its relevant extract is quoted herein below for ready reference:-

"50. Retirement on completion of 15 years'' qualifying service.

(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority;

Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.

Guidelines for acceptance of notice-A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of fifteen years qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant:

(i) who is under suspension.

(ii) In whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service;

(iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law.

In such cases, if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement approval of the Government should be obtained. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by the Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice."

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that impugned order (Annex. 7) dated 24.06.2014 and (Annex. 8) dated 24.06.2014 do not deserve to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows.

The accepting of the VRS application of the petitioner vide Annex. 3 dated 30.01.2014 in its clear terms was to be become effective prospectively only from 01.08.2014. The petitioner admittedly worked in the same position even after 30.01.2014, the date of issuing the order (Annex. 3), upto the date when he was placed under suspension on 24.06.2014. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pendency of disciplinary proceedings or suspension should be prior to the date of acceptance of such VRS application, is not borne out from the aforesaid Rule 50 and the Guidelines issued by the State Government thereunder, referred to supra. For all purposes, the acceptance of VRS application vide order (Annex. 3) dated 30.01.2014, was to become effective only prospectively w.e.f. 01.08.2014 as stipulated by the petitioner himself in his application, but before that date, if the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 24.06.2014 in contemplation of an enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958, which might result in imposition of a major penalty, the same cannot be ruled-out or excluded merely on the basis of the contention that voluntary retirement became effective on the date of its acceptance order dated 30.01.2014 (Annex. 3), though it was to become effective on 01.08.2014. The reference to the newspaper reports on the basis of which the purported disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner and the explanation furnished by the petitioner vide Annex. 6 dated 12.05.2014, also prima-facie shows that the allegations or the charges sought to be levelled against him are of serious nature that while working as Assistant Director, in the respondent Department, he made false payments of certain taxi bills to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs and odd, on the basis of forged bills for taxis hired by the said Department, the petitioner in the said explanation, has even submitted that he is ready to reimburse the total cost of such taxis hired by the State Government at his own end.

Be that as it may, this Court would not like to go into the merits of such charges and explanation thereof furnished by the petitioner at this stage, lest it affects the petitioner adversely during the enquiry proceedings. However, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pendency of such disciplinary action should be prior to the date of acceptance of VRS application even though the same is to have a prospective effect, cannot be accepted. The acceptance was to be become effective only on 01.08.2014 and before that if on account of initiation of disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 24.06.2014, it cannot be said that the acceptance of VRS application cannot be withdrawn or voluntary retirement cannot be withheld and made inoperative w.e.f. 01.08.2014. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and the petitioner must face the disciplinary action initiated by the respondent-Department.

This Court is, therefore, satisfied that no interference is called for in the impugned orders and the writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order to as costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.