Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 23 (JHR)

Gopinath Gagrai v. State of Jharkhand

2011-01-10

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. By this IA the Petitioner has sought amendment in the writ petition by bringing on record the subsequent even and development in the case. 2. It has been stated that the Petitioner had prayed for quashing of departmental proceeding and payment of salary in his writ petition. But during pendency of the writ petition the Petitioner retried on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2009. The Petitioner has, thus, sought amendment in the writ petition in order to bring on record the said fact as also for addition of prayer for direction on the Respondents to pay the retiral dues to the Petitioner along with order benefits. 3. The State-Respondent has no objection. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions, this interlocutory application is allowed. The amendment, prayed for, also stands allowed. Sd. Application allowed WP (S) No. 1343 of 2009 5. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the departmental proceeding and directing the Respondent to pay his arrears of salary and subsistence allowance and all his retiral dues, which are payable after his retirement on 31st July, 2009. 6. It has been stated that the Petitioner was a Headmaster in the Middle School, Ichadih (Ichagarh). During his service period, a charge-sheet was issued for his alleged absence from school and a departmental proceeding was initiated on 14.7.2005, as contained in annexure-2. The Petitioner was also put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. The Circle Officer, Nimdih was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner had filed his explanation and denied the charges. Since thereafter there was no progress in the departmental proceeding. The Petitioner's suspension was subsequently revoked by order dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure-5). The Petitioner, after rendering his long service and attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.7.2009. Even after his retirement result of the proceeding was not communicated to him so far. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the long pendency of the departmental proceeding, filed this writ petition in 2009 with the aforesaid prayer. 7. After retirement of the Petitioner an application was filed for amendment of the writ petition in order to bring on record the said fact and also for addition of the prayer directing the Respondents to pay his retiral dues also. 8. Mr. 7. After retirement of the Petitioner an application was filed for amendment of the writ petition in order to bring on record the said fact and also for addition of the prayer directing the Respondents to pay his retiral dues also. 8. Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that after the retirement of Petitioner, the departmental proceeding stands automatically terminated as no specific order was issued by any competent authority to continue the departmental proceeding even after his retirement. It has been further submitted that since there is no order of punishment for withholding the Petitioner's pay or any other benefits, he is entitled to get all his service terminal benefits and retiral dues including the arrears of salary of the suspension period. 9. Learned JC to GA appearing on behalf of the Respondents, opposed the Petitioner's prayer and submitted that the Petitioner was facing departmental proceeding on the serious charges of long absence and he was also put under suspension. For the said reason the Petitioner is not entitled to get salary and other benefits for the period he was put under suspension. He further submitted that in absence of any specific order for discontinuing the departmental proceeding it is presumed to be continued even after retirement. 10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The admitted case is that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2005. He had filed his explanation against the charges. But nothing was communicated to him thereafter regarding the said proceeding. The Petitioner's suspension was revoked in the year 2007. It is an admitted position that no specific order has been Issued by any competent authority to continue the proceeding even after retirement of the Petitioner. No rule or provision has been brought to the notice of this Court which provides for automatic continuation of departmental proceeding against an employee even after his retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC and Ors., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 , has laid down that the departmental enquiry is lapsed in absence of any specific provision for its continuance after retirement of an employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court had allowed the Appellant of that case all the retiral benefits and full salary of suspension period. The Hon'ble Apex Court had allowed the Appellant of that case all the retiral benefits and full salary of suspension period. No specific provision has been brought to my notice providing for continuation of the departmental proceeding after retirement of the employee. Though the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner long back in the year 2005, no development/result of the proceeding was communicated to the Petitioner during his service period and even after his retirement, till date. 11. In view of the above facts and the position of law, the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner is held to be terminated with effect from his date of retirement i.e. 31.7.2009 and the Petitioner is held to be entitled to get salary and all consequential benefits of service period and retiral benefits, after his retirement. 12. The Respondents are directed to pay all monetary benefits including the arears of salary and other service terminal benefits, as also the retiral dues of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. Petition allowed.