Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1969 (RAJ)

Ladu Singh v. R. S. R. T. C.

2011-09-13

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order Annex.1 dated 4.5.2005, Annex.2 dated 8.8.2007 and prayed that respondents may be directed to pay pension to the petitioner in accordance with Pension Payment Order already passed by the respondents along with 12% interest. 2. Facts of this case indicate that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Driver on 29.5.1974. Thereafter, while working on the said post the petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement which is accepted by the respondents with effect from 1.4.2004 and, thereafter, P.P.O. (Pension Payment Order) was issued in favour of the petitioner on 23.4.2004. It is stated in the writ petition by the petitioner that on 23.4.1982, in a criminal case filed against the petitioner under Section 4/9, Opium Act, challan was filed and, on that basis, after complete trial, the competent Court convicted the petitioner for the said offence vide judgment dated 21.3.1987 and passed order of sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Said conviction attained finality after order dated 9.4.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1/1992 by this Court at Jaipur Bench, in which, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offence the punishment was reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that in view of the registration of the criminal case against petitioner, in the departmental inquiry conducted against him, a punishment was inflicted against the petitioner under Sec. 36(2) of the Standing Orders of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, whereby, one grade increment without cumulative effect for one year was inflicted against the petitioner; and, thereafter, all service benefits were granted to the petitioner. However, vide order Annex.1 abruptly the Executive Director (Mechanical), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation passed order for withholding the provisional pension granted in favour of the petitioner upon the fact that the petitioner was convicted by criminal Court in the criminal case and it was further ordered to hold inquiry against those officers who passed order for inflicting minor penalty upon admission made by the petitioner about registration of the criminal case against him; and, further passed order for cancellation of the order granting extraordinary leave for the absence during which the petitioner remained in custody. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once after due application of mind penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect for one year was inflicted against the petitioner for alleged charge of registration of criminal case, then, there is no ground left for the respondents to deny the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that order dated 8.8.2007 (Annex.2) has been passed without providing opportunity to the petitioner, therefore, both the orders deserve to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him. 5. Per contra, while filing reply by the respondents it is brought to the notice of the Court that claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in law because the fact of conviction and sentence confirmed up to the High Court against the petitioner was concealed till passing order Annex.3 dated 1.3.1996 in the departmental inquiry. Both the orders impugned have been passed at the strength of the fact that the conviction against the petitioner was confirmed finally by the High Court in the criminal case was not brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner and he sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2003 while filing application Annex.R/1; but, as and when the fact of conviction came to the knowledge of the respondents impugned orders Annex.1 dated 4.5.2005 and Annex.2 dated 8.8.2007 were passed by the Executive Director (Mechanical) in accordance with law, in which, there is no illegality. It has also been though proper by the higher authorities of the respondent Corporation to initiate departmental proceedings against those officers who did not care to ascertain the outcome of the criminal case and ignored the fact of conviction of the petitioner in the criminal trial and inflicted minor penalty giving special indulgence to the petitioner, therefore, after having knowledge of conviction the respondents obviously acted in accordance with law while passing orders Annex.1 and 2 by which pensionary benefits have been denied to the petitioner for the reason that in the whole service period the petitioner did not disclose the correct fact of conviction in the criminal case registered against him under the Opium Act which is upheld up to the High Court, therefore, from any angle the petitioner cannot be allowed to claim the pensionary benefits. More so, he is guilty of making concealment of fact from the respondents and continued to work for years together even after the judgment rendered by the High Court in the revision petition maintaining the order of conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 4/9, Opium Act. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 7. It is very strange that the day on which the punishment order was passed on 1.3.1996 although the petitioner accepted the fact of registration of the criminal case under the Opium act but did not disclose the fact of conviction and punishment awarded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.3.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, which is upheld up to the High Court vide judgment dated 9.4.2003 and the Chief Manager without ascertaining the conclusion of the criminal trial passed order for inflicting penalty of withholding one grade increment without cumulative effect for one year. In my opinion, in whole of the service tenure of the petitioner all the authorities of the respondent Corporation did not even choose to ascertain the fact of conclusion of the criminal case although the fact of registration of criminal case under the Opium Act was accepted by the petitioner at the time of inflicting the penalty. 8. It appears that there is gross negligence on the part of the authorities of the respondent Corporation whereby they allowed the petitioner to work who had already been convicted up to the High Court in the criminal case registered against him under the Opium Act. It is also worthwhile to observe that the plea of the respondents that the fact of conviction is not disclosed by the petitioner is having strength to deny the benefit to the petitioner; but, at the same time, it is also very important to observe that the fact of registration of the criminal case against the petitioner for recovery of opium from him came to the notice of the Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Bikaner on 1.3.1996 but, until seeking voluntary retirement by the petitioner, the authorities of the department did not ask the petitioner to submit the conclusion of the criminal trial. Therefore, the petitioner as well as all the authorities concerned are responsible for allowing the accused to work in the department for years together even though he was convicted by the criminal Court. 9. In my opinion, under the rules and basic principles of law a convicted employee cannot be allowed to work in the department for single day but, here, in this case, the petitioner not only worked without disclosing the fact of conviction is claiming pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him after his conviction which attained finality in the year 1993 when his revision petition filed before the High Court was decided while maintaining the conviction. 10. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no substance, therefore, dismissed. 11. However, the respondents are directed to take action against all erring officer the then Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Bikaner who passed order on 1.3.1996 without ascertaining the outcome of the criminal case.