State of Haryana and Another Vs Vinod Kumar Goyal and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

State of Haryana and Another Vs Vinod Kumar Goyal and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No fresh relief adjudicated; the LPA is dismissed as the State accepted the Single Bench order treating the deceased respondent as voluntarily retired (accepted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 vide memo dated 21.09.2020) and all admissible benefits (GPF, GIS, Leave Encashment with interest; gratuity, pension and commutation through the Accountant General, Lucknow) stand released/payable.

Issue for consideration

Whether the LPA filed by the State against the learned Single Bench's order treating the deceased employee as having voluntarily retired should be dismissed, the State having accepted that treatment and released the admissible benefits, so that the dismissal order could not have been passed. +1 more

Court's answer

It is apparent that the appellants themselves prayed for dismissal of the LPA, having accepted the order passed by the learned Single Bench treating the respondent as having voluntarily retired; consequently, the dismissal order could not have been passed.

Ratio / Principle

Since all benefits have already been released and the State has accepted the Single Bench treatment of voluntary retirement, no order is required to be passed in the present LPA and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Key takeaways

All pending applications in this case are disposed of accordingly.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA by the State of Haryana against the learned Single Bench's order treating deceased Sub Divisional Engineer Vinod Kumar Goyal as having voluntarily retired. By interim order dated 27.01.2020 the Division Bench had recorded a prima facie view that, given pending disciplinary proceedings for disobeying orders of High Authority and prolonged absence from duty, the employee could not be deemed to have voluntarily retired, while observing that dismissal despite an alleged blemishless 33 years of service would be disproportionate and unduly harsh; the parties had agreed to substitute the punishment with a lesser, proportionate one. In compliance (including an order dated 02.05.2022), the State filed an affidavit dated 10.08.2022: suspension period 13.06.2007 to 21.01.2008 treated as leave of kind due; voluntary retirement accepted w.e.f. 14.12.2010 vide memo dated 21.09.2020, the VRS application dated 14.09.2010 being treated as VRS notice per Rule 5.32 B(1) and (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II; GPF, GIS and Leave Encashment with interest released vide memo No. 4015 dated 24.05.2022; gratuity, pension and commutation payable through the Accountant General, Lucknow. As the appellants thereby accepted the Single Bench order and themselves prayed for dismissal of the appeal, the Court held that no order was required to be passed and dismissed the LPA; all pending applications were disposed of accordingly. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J., oral; Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.; decided 6 May 2025.)

222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-624-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6^th of May, 2025

STATE OF HA RYANA AND ANOTHER ..…...Appellant(s)

V/s.

VINOD KU M AR GOYAL (SINCE DECESAS E D) .....Respondent(s) (represented b y the LRs.)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present M r. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana, f or the appellants. M r. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocat e , assisted by M r. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advo c ate for the respondents.

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. T his Court vide order dated 27.01.2020, has passed the

following or d er:-

“After hearing counsel for the appellant, we are prima f acie of the view that in the fa ce of pending disciplinary p roceedings for disobeying the o r ders of High Authority and a bsence from duty for such a hug e period, the employee could n ot be deemed to have voluntary retired. Simultaneously, even the order of punishment of dismissal from service in the light of a lleged blemishless 33 years of service would also not be w arranted being disproportiona t e and unduly harsh. The d elinquent official died before th e order dated 25.10.2015/17 w as passed by the learned Single J u dge. During the course of heari n g, it was more or less agreed that the order of punishment has t o be substituted with a lesser a nd proportionate punishment. Counsel for the parties pray f or time to seek instructions. List on 05.03.2020.”

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.09 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-624-2018 (O&M)

Page 2 of 3

2. I n compliance of the said order, an affidavit dated 10.08.2022 has been file d by the State and it is stated as u nder:-

“ 4. That in compliance of orde r dated 27.01.2020 and order d ated 02.05.2022 passed by th e Hon’ble High Court, the G overnment after careful consider a tion of the case, has decided to treat the suspension period of S h. Vinod Kumar Goyal, Sub D ivisional Engineer (expired) fro m 13.06.2007 to 21.01.2008 as leave of kind due for all intents and purposes. Further, the G overnment vide memo dated 21. 0 9.2020 has decided to accept h is voluntary retirement w.e.f. 14. 1 2.2010 after considering his V RS application dated 14.09.201 0 as VRS notice as per Rule 5 .32 B(1) and (2) of the Punjab Ci v il Services Rules, Vol.II. The C opy of memo dated 21.09.2020 is annexed as Annexure R-2. 5 . That all admissible ben ef its i.e. GPF, GIS, Leave E ncashment along with interest h a ve already been released to the petitioner vide memo No. 401 5 dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure R -3) as intimated by the Execut i ve Engineer, Public Health E ngineering Division No.1, Nuh. W hereas the Gratuity, Pension a nd Commutation is to be paid thr o ugh the Accountant General, L ucknow as authority has been se n t to the Accountant General, L ucknow by the Accountant Gener a l, Haryana as the LRs. of Sh. V inod Kumar Goyal has been set t led in Uttar Pradesh on the r etirement of Sh. Vinod Kumar Go y al.”

3. I n view of the above, it is apparent that the appellants before the Court ha v e prayed for dismissal of the L PA as they have accepted the order passed by the learned Single Bench tr e ating him to have voluntarily retired and th e refore, dismissal order could n o t have been passed.

4. A ll benefits have already been r eleased, therefore, no order is required to b e passed in the present LP A and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.09 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA-624-2018 (O&M)

Page 3 of 3

5. A ll pending applications in this case are disposed of

accordingly.

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

[MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE

May 6, 2025

Ess Kay W hether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No W hether Reportable : Yes / No

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.09 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document