Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 148 (RAJ)

Subhash Chandra Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-22

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that record of the case may be called for and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) The respondent may kindly be directed drop the proceeding of the recovery of the amount of Rs.15.19 lakhs from the petitioner and, (ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to release the gratuity and commutation amount of the petitioner with immediate effect @ 9% interest and, (iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to release the full and final pension of the petitioner and, (iv) The respondent may kindly be directed to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and, (v) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour. (vi) The writ petition may be allowed with costs.” 2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the respondent department on 20.10.1978 and attained superannuation from the post of Assistant Engineer on 30.04.2012. However, only provisional pension was paid to the petitioner, whereas retiral benefits were withheld by the respondents. During service, the petitioner was transferred on the post of Executive Engineer Regulation Division – 4, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Nachna on 01.08.2007, and four years thereafter, a letter dated 23.03.2011 was sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4 alleging that the petitioner had not done physical verification of the store goods worth Rs.15.19/- lakhs and directed to get the same done and handover charge to the concerned Jr. Engineer. 2.1. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 appointed Jr. Engineer Shri M.K. Bohra by order dated 31.01.2012 to take over charge from the petitioner, however on count of unwillingness shown by Shri M.K. Bohra, the same could not take place, and on many occasions, the petitioner endeavoured for the same, yet no result yielded, and therefore a representation dated 20.04.2012 was sent to respondent no.2 requesting issuance of direction to respondent no.3 to accept survey report and for Shri M.K. Bohra to accept charge of the stock; in furtherance, the representation was made to the Superintending Engineer, Construction and Maintenance Circle IGNP, Phalodi and Executive Engineer 28th Division, IGNP, Phalodi. 2.2. 2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation and was retired from his services on 30.04.2012 and No-dues letter was issued to the petitioner on the same date. However, the respondent no.3 sent a letter dated 03.05.2012 for deposition of an amount of Rs.15.19 lakhs by the petitioner. Thereafter on 09.10.2012, a letter was sent by respondent no.3 to respondent no.4 stating that the survey report of only stock amounting to Rs.4,77,588/- is left to be prepared. 2.3. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 6380/2013 (Subhash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2013), whereafter, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner made representations to the respondents on various occasions, and on 05.07.2013, the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to handover the charge to Shri M.K. Bohra, whereafter the petitioner went to Phalodi and duly handed over the charge of stock and T&P, and in regard to this, a letter dated 27.08.2013 was issued by the respondent No.3 stating the charge of items given by the petitioner and also the ones not given. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was issued the No-dues certificate, and on that count, the proceeding and the recovery of Rs.15.19/- Lakhs pending against the petitioner is not valid. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent department, four years after the petitioner’s transfer, directed him to handover the charge of stock and T&P, when the same was the responsibility of the respondent department to do the same at the time of the transfer; even then, the petitioner had made all efforts to handover the charge, however the Jr. Engineer so appointed by the respondents did not accept the same. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that since the petitioner had no disciplinary proceedings pending against him nor any chargesheet was issued to him, thus the impugned action of the respondents in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner is violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 4. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that since the petitioner had no disciplinary proceedings pending against him nor any chargesheet was issued to him, thus the impugned action of the respondents in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner is violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer from 06.09.1997 till 19.08.2008 in the office of Assistant Engineer, Sub Division 4th (P.B.D.-I), 28th Division, I.G.N.P., Nachana, thereafter the said division was merged with another, and thus, the petitioner was asked to handover the charge of stocks and T&P, but despite the same, he failed to do so. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was asked to handover the charge of the stocks and T&P on numerous occasions vide letters dated 21.01.2008, 17.02.2008, 27.02.2008, 29.02.2008, 30.05.2011, 17.06.2008, 19.04.2012 & 14.05.2012; however, the petitioner failed to do the same, and it was on count of this, that the petitioner’s retiral benefits were withheld, and rightly so. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the Shri M.K. Bohra had vide letter dated 13.03.2012 informed the respondent no.3 of the petitioner’s unwillingness to handover the charge and had already submitted a report with the department vide letter dated 09.02.2012 and 27.02.2012, and therefore it was not possible for Mr. Bohra to take charge from the petitioner. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, vide letter dated 25.03.2012, the petitioner was duly apprised of the fact that the list submitted by him bore no signature of him, and the petitioner had failed to handover the charge to the concerned person, thus the delay could be attributed to him and appropriate proceedings could be initiated against him. 4.3. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of retirement, the charge of stock and T&P for a worth of Rs.15.19/- lakhs was lying with the petitioner, while only partial charge of the stock and T&P was handed over to the respondents on 29.05.2012. 4.4. 4.3. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of retirement, the charge of stock and T&P for a worth of Rs.15.19/- lakhs was lying with the petitioner, while only partial charge of the stock and T&P was handed over to the respondents on 29.05.2012. 4.4. Learned counsel also submits that in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents issued letters dated 27.06.2013, 05.07.2013 and 19.07.2013 directing the petitioner to handover the charge, and even constituted a committee, and asked the petitioner to appear before the said committee, yet no action was taken by the petitioner in that regard. 4.4.1. In furtherance on 02.08.2013, a list of articles, handed over by the petitioner, was prepared in his presence, and the stock and T&P charge of which was not handed over by the petitioner and having a cost of about Rs.6,81,600/- is still lying with the petitioner. 5. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above mentioned letters were never received by the petitioner, as the same were internal correspondences of the department; in furtherance, no inquiry was held against the petitioner, thus in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996, the respondents had no authority to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner. 5.1. Learned counsel further submits in rejoinder that as claimed by the respondents, the petitioner was never repeatedly asked to handover the charge, instead it was the petitioner himself who had continuously requested the respondents to take the charge from the petitioner, while the respondents are simply trying to shift the burden from their shoulders to that of the petitioner; furthermore, the respondents by their own letter dated 09.10.2012 have stated only articles of Rs.4,77,588/- were due against the petitioner, and now have calculated dues of Rs.6,81,600/- against the petitioner. 6. 6. In reply to the rejoinder, learned counsel for the respondents submits that some of the aforesaid letters were communicated to the petitioner in person, and further, the petitioner was made aware of whom he had to handover the charge of stock and T&P having a cost of Rs.6,81,600/-, even then, the petitioner failed to do the same; it was duty cast upon the petitioner to act in accordance with the Rules in vogue, and continuously from the date of 17.02.2008 till the date of petitioner’s retirement, the respondents kept on reminding the petitioner on various occasions to handover the charge to concerned person, thus due to the petitioner’s own inaction, the State Exchequer suffered from huge revenue loss. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer in the respondent department on 20.10.1978 and superannuated from the post of Assistant Engineer on 30.04.2012. During his service tenure, in the year 2008, the petitioner was transferred from Phalodi to Nachana, however handing over of the charge of certain stocks and T&P worth Rs. 15.19 Lakhs did not take place, while the petitioner was relieved from his place of working, Subsequently, vide letter dated 23.03.2011, the petitioner was apprised regarding his failure in handing over of the aforesaid charge of stock and T&P and of the recovery proceedings that could be initiated against him if the same was not done by him; the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents continued till the retirement of the petitioner, but the aforesaid charge of stock and T&P was not handed over, on count of which, the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner were withheld by the respondents. 9. 9. This Court further observes that the petitioner was to retire on 30.04.2012 and before his retirement an Office Order dated 16.09.2011 was issued by the Office of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the effect that before retirement of the mentioned employees, records of the department should be checked and a month prior to the retirement, No-dues certificate should be provided to the said department, whereafter the petitioner retired on the aforesaid date, and on the same day, No-dues certificate was issued to the petitioner; the relevant portion of the said order dated 30.04.2012 is reproduced as hereunder : ^^mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd Jh lqHkk"k pUn fla?ky d0v0 ds lsok fuo`fr vkns'k eq[; vfHk;ark ty lalk/ku t;iqj us vius vkns'k la , ¼19½ eq0v0t0l0@LFkk&11@649376502 fnukad 16-9-11 }kjk tkjh fd,s Fks ftlesa deZpkjh Fks fo:) tkap uk cdk;k ds fy, lwpuk pkgh x;h gSA ftldh ikyuk esa bl mi[k.M ds fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj deZpkjh ds fo:) dksVZ foHkkxh; tkapk iSfMax esa ugha gSA vr% d`i;k l{ke vf/kdkjh ls Jh fla?ky d0v0 ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap uk cdk;k izek.k i= eaxokus dk Je djkos rkfd isa'ku izdj.k ds lkFk fHktok;k tk ldsA** 9.1. This Court also observes that though the respondents took the drastic measure of withholding of the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner, due to matter relating to that of handing over the aforesaid charge of stock and T&P it is clear that the respondents themselves provided the No-dues certificate at the time of petitioner’s retirement. 10. This Court further observes that the above-mentioned writ petition bearing no. S.B.C.W.P. No. 6380/2013 was preferred by the petitioner, which was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 30.05.2013; relevant portion of the said order dated 30.05.2013 is reproduced as hereunder : “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1 within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the said authority is directed to make arrangement for taking charge of material because petitioner is ready to hand over the same within a period of one month from the date of appearing before the respondent No.1. It is also made clear that the petitioner should give in writing his willingness to hand over the charge and in that event the respondent No.1 may be directed to comply with the aforesaid direction and after receiving charge of material and other things, it is expected from the respondents that amount of gratuity and commutation of the petitioner will be released in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.” 10.1. After passing of the aforementioned order, the petitioner submitted a representation before the concerned respondent authority showing his willingness to handover the charge in question to the concerned official, which shows a clear bonafide on the part of the petitioner. 11. This Court also observes that since 2008 till retirement of the petitioner in the year 2012 and even till now there is no mention of any disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the petitioner nor any order for recovery has been passed; in such circumstances, where no action was taken by the respondents against the petitioner, and in addition, No-dues certificate was also issued at the time of retirement of the petitioner, the impugned action of withholding the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits is unjustified in law. 12. This Court further observes that there was continuous correspondence taking place between the petitioner and the respondents; furthermore, the petitioner had continued to showcase his willingness to handover the aforesaid charge of stock and T&P to the respondents, thus it cannot be said that the petitioner shirk away from the duty cast upon him. 13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action on part of the respondents cannot be continued and sustained for an indefinite period of time, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, withholding the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits is not warranted. 14. In view of the above, as a limited intervention, the respondents are hereby directed to release the pension and other retiral benefits, as withheld by them, in favour of the petitioner, after due computation thereof. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The instant petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The instant petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. All pending applications are disposed of.