Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 246 (MAD)

N. R. Gayathri v. Director of Social Welfare

2013-01-09

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is employed as a Superintendent in the Social Welfare Department. She opted to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. She submitted her applications first on 2.4.2012 and secondly on 6.8.2012. The petitioner was transferred after her application for voluntary retirement was kept pending. Hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.9836 of 2012 to quash the transfer order. While allowing the writ petition on 29.8.2012, this Court directed the respondent herein to consider the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner within a period of three weeks, since there was no impediment for considering the claim of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, as it was pointed out that the disciplinary action that was pending earlier resulted in the imposition of a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. 2. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.9.2012 was passed pursuant to the order dated 29.8.2012 passed in W.P. No. 9836 of 2012 rejecting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on the ground that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is currency. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules provides for recovery of the monetary value of the amount that was sought to be denied to the petitioner due to the punishment, whenever the punishment cannot be given effect to. Rule (8) is extracted hereunder:- "Rule 8 The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon every person who is a member of the civil service of the State and every person holding a civil post under the State specified in Rule 2, namely:- (i) Censure, (ii) Fine (in the case of persons for whom such penalty is permissible under these rules) (iii) Withholding of increments or promotion: Provided that in cases where the punishment of withholding of increment cannot be given effect to fully, monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld for the unexpired period of the punishment shall be recovered from the person: Provided further that in cases of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments ordered to be withheld may be recovered. 4. 4. In view of Rule 8(iii), I am of the view that the respondent is not correct in refusing to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. The respondent can very well recover the amount as provided under Rule 8 (iii) from the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, he impugned order is quashed and the respondent is directed to accept the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 9.11.2012 and to recover the entire amount that is sought to be withheld as per the punishment order dated 23.4.2012, under Rule 8(iii) mentioned above. The respondent is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.