Disposed

Sijo Varghese v. Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2024WP/20695/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders cancelling his accepted voluntary retirement due to domestic violence complaints involving sharing confidential info. Court upheld orders temporarily, granted respondents three months to investigate, and directed restoration of retirement if investigation clears the petitioner, extending validity to March 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders upheld for the time being; respondents granted three months to complete investigation; petitioner to cooperate; restoration of voluntary retirement directed if investigation exonerates

Sijo Varghese Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20695 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SIJO VARGHESE AGED 44 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE SUB-INSPECTOR/RADIO OPERATOR, CENTRE FOR ELECTRONICS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATION (CEDCO), BORDER SECURITY FORCE, YELEHANKA, BANGALORE-560 063

¶8

PERMANENT ADDRESS: AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE NO.123, VILLAGE UDAYAGIRI, KADAMAKUZHI P.O KATTAPANA, IDUKKI-685 515.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. KAILESH T. GOPI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, BLOCK NO.10, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶17

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (CI) CENTRE FOR ELECTRONICS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATION (CEDCO), BSF, BENGALURU-560 063.

¶18

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRE FOR ELECTRONICS AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATION (CEDCO) BSF, BENGALURU-560 063

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF ANNEXURE-C ORDER BEARING NO. ESTT/CEDCO/BSF/VOL RET/2024/11331-44 DATED 26.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.Estt/CEDCO/BSF/Vol Ret/2024/11331-44 dated 26.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 and the consequent order bearing No.Estt/CEDCO/Move/2024/11424-31 dated 27.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.4. The petitioner has also sought for a

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶28

writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to voluntarily retire his services with effect from 31.07.2024.

¶29

The petitioner contends that after serving the respondents for 23 years and being entitled to voluntary retirement, in terms of Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972), he submitted a request for voluntary retirement on 22.02.2024 with a request to retire him with effect from 31.07.2024. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent No.4 in terms of an order dated 23.03.2024. The petitioner was thereafter transferred to the 67^th Battalion BSF. The petitioner did not accept the order in view of the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. The petitioner contends that he thereafter received an order bearing No.EStt/CEDCO/BSF/Vol RET/2024/11331-44 dated 26.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 stating that his wife, who was also employed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector/Pharmacist in the BSF, had lodged a complaint with Yelahanka police station alleging domestic violence and other allegations which required further examination. Therefore, the respondent No.4 notified the petitioner that the notice of voluntary retirement accepted

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶32

vide order dated 23.03.2024 is cancelled. The petitioner contends that this order is ex-facie illegal, discriminatory and without authority of law. He contends that once the request for voluntary retirement is accepted, there is no provision under the Rules to cancel it. He contends that he was not aware of

¶33

any police complaint lodged by his wife at Yelahanka police station. He further contends that even if there is any misconduct on his part, the authorities have no power to proceed against him departmentally, as there is no provision in law to proceed against a person who had voluntarily retired from service. The petitioner has therefore questioned the aforesaid order of the respondent No.4.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and contended that in view of the alleged complaint lodged against petitioner, he filed an application for anticipatory bail. However, the Court rejected it, on the ground that no complaint was registered against the petitioner and the perceived threat of arrest was not based on any genuine reason. He therefore, submits that if the wife of the petitioner had lodged a complaint and if it disclosed any cognizable offences, the police would have taken action. He therefore,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶37

submits that the respondents have committed an error in taking note of the complaint lodged by his wife to cancel the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, that too after its acceptance.

¶38

One of the allegations made by the wife of the petitioner relates to sharing confidential departmental secrets with others for financial gain. This Court in terms of an order dated 02.09.2024 directed the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents to verify the authenticity of the allegations made against the petitioner by his wife that he had shared confidential information of the force with others for financial gain. In response to the above, the learned Central Government Counsel, has filed an application seeking three months time to complete the investigation. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is contended that the petitioner who was earlier attached to 67^th battalion is now attached to CEDCO, BSF, Bengaluru, till the completion of investigation or until further orders. Likewise, an order dated 27.09.2024 is enclosed with the application, which shows that the competent authority has decided to institute a one man enquiry to investigate the truth of the allegations made by the

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶40

wife of the petitioner. Therefore the issue definitely requires an investigation or an enquiry by the respondents and hence, the impugned order canceling the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, cannot be treated as unjustified.

¶41

In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not merit any interference. However, having regard to the request made by the respondents for time to conduct and complete an investigation, this writ petition stands disposed

¶42

off on the following terms:

¶43

(i) The impugned orders passed by the respondents dated 26.07.2024 and 27.07.2024 are upheld for the time being.

¶44

(ii) The respondents are granted three months time from today to complete the investigation against the petitioner.

¶45

(iii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation into the complaint lodged against him by his wife.

¶46

(iv) After the investigation, if the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner has not shared confidential information of the department with

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶49

others for financial gain, the respondents shall take immediate action to restore the orders of voluntary retirement that was accepted on 23.03.2024 with

¶50

effect from 31.07.2024.

¶51

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:41027 WP No. 20695 of 2024

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶57

[SIJO VARGHESE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS]

¶58

05.02.2025

¶59

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶61

ORAL ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2025

¶62

I.A.No.1/2025 is filed by the respondents seeking to modify the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court.

¶63

In view of the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by this Court and the contention of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel that the petitioner was paid salary till January, 2025, his voluntary retirement shall be given effect to from 31.03.2025. The petitioner shall continue to work and draw salary till 31.03.2025.

¶64

Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 stands disposed off.

¶65

This order shall be read in conjunction with the order dated 01.10.2024.

Sd/(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

PMR

List No.: 9 Sl No.: 2

Sijo Varghese v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sijo Varghese v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraj I Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri H. Shyama Shetty Vs Vijaya Bank

Shri H. Shyama Shetty Vs Vijaya Bank

Shri M D Chandrashekar Vs Indian Bank

T. Srinivasa Murthy S/O T Thimmaiah Vs Janatha Seva Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Venkateshappa v H Alias Venkatesh v H Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited