Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 257 (AP)

N. Ram Reddy v. Union of India

2001-03-13

S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO

body2001
S. B. SINHA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition arises out of a judgment dated 3-3-2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1905 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of directing. (a) The impugned order dated 13-7-1999 and 26-10-1999 are hereby set aside. (b) The applicant shall be deemed to have retired from service w. e. f. 31-7-1999. (c) As disciplinary action is contemplated against the applicant the respondent authorities shall sanction only the provisional pension to the applicant in accordance with the rules. (d) The respondents shall issue a fresh charge memo in accordance with the rules on or before 31-12-2000 if not issued within this stipulated time they shall release all the pensionary benefits to the applicant. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Central excise and Customs. He was subsequently promoted as Superintendent. The petitioner pending a departmental enquiry prayed for retirement from service voluntarily as contemplated under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The said prayer was rejected by an order dated 26-10-1999 passed by the Commissioner the 2nd respondent. In the aforementioned situation the petitioner herein prayed for in the said OA inter alia claiming the following reliefs:"to call for the records relating to impugned order No. C. No. II/3/30/98/estt. dated 13-7-1999 and 26-10-1999 and set aside the same duly declaring that the applicant is deemed to have retired from service w. e. f. 1-8-1999 with consequential directions to respondents to forthwith pay his retirement benefits within specified time. " ( 3 ) THE learned Tribunal keeping in view the aforementioned provisions of rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and various decisions of the Central administrative Tribunal and also the supreme Court held:"now the main reason for withholding the permission to the applicant to retire voluntarily from service is contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that the charge sheet has already been issued by the disciplinary authority. As the applicant sought permission to retire w. e. f. 31-7-1999, the charge-sheet issued thereafter may not be according to the rules. We feel the respondents have to issue a fresh charge sheet with the sanction of the president. It is stated that the charge sheet has already been issued by the disciplinary authority. As the applicant sought permission to retire w. e. f. 31-7-1999, the charge-sheet issued thereafter may not be according to the rules. We feel the respondents have to issue a fresh charge sheet with the sanction of the president. Hence we feel it proper to direct the respondents to issue a fresh charge-sheet as per the rules on or before 31-12-2000. Till such time, the respondent authorities shall release to the applicant only the provisional pension. If the respondent fail to issue the fresh charge-sheet within the stipulated time then they shall release the pension and pensionary benefits to the applicant. "despite the aforementioned finding it was directed:"further if the respondents have paid to the applicant any salary and emoluments on the basis of the impugned orders w. e. f. 1-8-1999 the same shall be appropriated towards the provisional pension to be paid to the applicant. " ( 4 ) MR. G. Ramachandra Rao learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act the finding to the aforementioned effect must be held to be contrary to law. The learned Counsel appears to be correct. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that despite the petitioner s filing an application for voluntary retirement as far back as on 24-7-1998 the same had not been allowed. In fact the same was rejected as noticed herein before by a letter dated 26-10-1999. The learned tribunal, keeping in view the aforementioned provisions as also various decisions came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for retirement on voluntary basis. It is therefore, evident that the petitioner was forced to work despite the submission of the application for voluntary retirement as by reason of the impugned judgment although the petitioner has already retired from service w. e. f. 31-7-1999 and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had rendered services, his salary and emoluments for the period from 31-8-1999 till he was relieved on 6-4-2000 cannot be denied having regard to the provisions contained in Section 70 of the indian Contract Act as also Article 23 of the constitution of India. However there cannot be any doubt that the pensionary and other terminal benefits payable to the petitioner shall be computed on the basis that he has retired from service on 31-7-1999. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is allowed for the aforementioned reasons.