Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 514 (HP)

Union of India v. J. S. Thakur

2017-05-15

SANJAY KAROL, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “That the impugned order dated 13.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the ld. Central Administrative Tribunal below may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the respondent filed Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Circuit at Shimla (for short “Tribunal”) claiming therein the following reliefs:- “(a) The Respondents may kindly be directed to treat the period of suspension i.e. 29-3-1982 to 9-2-1990 as spent on duty and to treat the said period as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retirement benefits with all consequential benefits; (b) The period of 23-1-1998 to 18-12-1998 and 2-6-2003 to 25-7-2003 treated as Extra-Ordinary Leave by the Respondents vide orders contained in Annexures A-11 and A-12 may kindly be directed to be treated as qualifying service for pension and other retirement benefits in the interests of justice; (c) The applicant may kindly be held to be entitled to the 2nd ACP with effect from 9-8-1999; (d) The Respondents may kindly be directed to supply the copies of the statements of General Provident Fund deductions/accumulations since the year 1998 to the date of retirement of the applicant; (e) Any action taken or orders passed by the Respondents for denying the above relief to the applicant, may kindly be declared wrong, illegal, arbitrary and may be quashed and set aside in the interests of justice; (f) The respondents may kindly be directed to produce the record and after the perusal thereof, any other or further relief as may be warranted by the facts and circumstances of this case, may also be allowed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the interests of justice.” 3. The respondent in the year 1965 was appointed as a Clerk Grade-II in the Office of the Registrar of Newspaper for India, headquarter at Shimla. In the year 1977, the said Office was shifted to Delhi alongwith its staff. Since the respondent belonged to Shimla, he wanted himself to be posted in Shimla, but his request could not be materialized. On 29.03.1982, the respondent was suspended from service on charges of unauthorized absence from duty and leaving station without permission. In the year 1977, the said Office was shifted to Delhi alongwith its staff. Since the respondent belonged to Shimla, he wanted himself to be posted in Shimla, but his request could not be materialized. On 29.03.1982, the respondent was suspended from service on charges of unauthorized absence from duty and leaving station without permission. The inquiry was conducted against the respondent wherein it was alleged that he did not co-operate with the inquiry committee. Since the respondent did not co-operate in the inquiry, vide order dated 20.06.1994, the disciplinary authority awarded major punishment by ordering his removal from service. 4. On an appeal having been filed before the appellate authority i.e. Secretary I &B, the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.05.1995 for denovo inquiry by holding that there were procedural lapses. 5. After issuing a fresh charge sheet to the respondent, inquiry was ordered vide order dated 31.10.1995 and on 25.01.1997, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority after considering inquiry report vis-a-vis the representation made by the respondent awarded major penalty. 6. However, on an appeal having been preferred before the appellate authority by the respondent, the matter was once again remitted back to the disciplinary authority for rectifying certain procedural lapses. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority once again vide its order dated 24.02.2000 awarded major penalty against the respondent. 7. The review filed by the respondent was also dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2001. The respondent thereafter approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Delhi by filing OA No. 548 of 2000, however, the said OA was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2003 and the matter is now pending adjudication before the learned Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 3216 of 2006 filed by the respondent against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 05.03.2003. 8. However, later on, the respondent appears to have approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Chandigarh, Circuit at Shimla, by filing Original Application No. 10/HP/2009 and had sought the reliefs as has been quoted in verbatim in para No. 2 (supra). 9. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application by granting all the reliefs to the respondent as were prayed for. 10. 9. As observed earlier, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application by granting all the reliefs to the respondent as were prayed for. 10. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners have assailed the order primarily on the ground that the reliefs as claimed for by the respondent could not have been granted by the Tribunal as this matter was already sub-judice before the learned Delhi High Court. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 12. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to first advert to the precise relief that had been sought for by the respondent while filing Original Application No. 548 of 2002 which was decided by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 05.03.2003. 13. The records reveal that the respondent had assailed order dated 09.04.2001 vide which his period of suspension with effect from 29.03.1982 to 09.02.1990 was treated as period not spent on duty and had sought further direction that the subsequent period from 10.02.1990 to 10.12.1996 be treated as period spent on duty. Thus, it is evidently clear that as regards the period with effect from 29.03.1982 to 09.02.1990 and the subsequent period with effect from 10.02.1990 to 10.12.1996 has not been treated as period spent on duty by the respondent and such contention stands affirmed by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 05.03.2003. However, as observed earlier, the matter with regard to this lis is sub-judice before the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 3216 of 2006. 14. If that be the position, obviously, the petitioners are right in contending that the Original Application filed by the respondent could not have been allowed in toto and therefore, to the extent the impugned order holds the respondent to be entitled for regularization of his suspension period from 29.03.1982 to 09.02.1990 for the purpose of pensionary benefits obviously cannot be sustained. Even, the further direction to make payment of difference of arrears of pay and pensionary benefits revised from time to time and thereafter his pension to be affixed accordingly also cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Even, the further direction to make payment of difference of arrears of pay and pensionary benefits revised from time to time and thereafter his pension to be affixed accordingly also cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Therefore, even the further direction to consider the case of the respondent for regularization of period from 23.01.1998 to 18.12.1998 and from 02.06.2003 to 25.07.2003 is also not sustainable and would be dependent on the outcome of the decision of WP (C) No. 3216 of 2006. This position is unexceptional and, therefore, has rightly not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 15. As regards the other reliefs as awarded in favour of the respondent, it would be noticed that the same have not been specifically assailed in the petition and even otherwise we do not really find any reason to interfere with the said findings. 16. Having said so, the petition is party allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.