Partly allowed

Dr. Jc Verma v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Jan 2019CW/4225/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a departmental punishment for willful absence, holding that leave regularization does not negate misconduct on his application for interest on delayed gratuity was allowed for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Gratuity released on 19.10.2005 shall carry interest at 9% for the period from 9.3.2001 to 19.10.2005.

Dr. Jc Verma Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4225/2001

¶3

Dr. J.C. Verma son of Dr. Laxmi Kant, aged 67, resident of 2/24, Champa Nagar, Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶4

……...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical & Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Medical & Health Department, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel (Ka-3), Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

……..Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Saksena For Respondent(s) : None

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

29/01/2019

¶14

No one appears for the respondent.

¶15

The petitioner by way of this present writ petition assails the order dated 9^th March, 2001 whereby the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him of remaining willful absent from duty for a different period, as mentioned in the charges for the period from 19.6.1995 to 2.8.1995 and 6.8.1995 to 29.5.1996 and also partly for the charge no.3 for having earlier also remained absent from duty on various dates. He also challenges the punishment awarded to him of withholding 25% of pension for five years.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-4225/2001]

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the order the petitioner is also aggrieved of the action of the respondent of releasing the other retiral benefits to the petitioner belatedly and also claims interest on the said amount which was paid to him after the due date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the said absence of 45 days as per charge no.1 and for the subsequent absence on 6.8.1995 to 29.5.1996, the petitioner had submitted medical certificates showing that he was forced to remain absent from duty. The period of absence from 6.3.1995 to 29.5.1996 was when the petitioner remained APO and thus he could not be treated absent from duty for the said period.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that he had taken privilege leave of 183 days and half pay leave period of 22 days and the same was accordingly adjusted and there was no occasion of punishing the petitioner for the absence.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel and finds that the charge levelled against the petitioner was of remaining willful absent. Willful absence is independent of settlement of the leave period. Willful absence indicates the misconduct of an employee for which he may be separately indicted by conducting a departmental enquiry and merely because his leave period has been regularized by adjusting from his privileged leave and half pay leave, the factum of having misconducted himself would not erode. The respondents therefore cannot be said to have acted beyond their powers to have conducted departmental enquiry and punishing the petitioner. Once the enquiry officer has held that the absence

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CW-4225/2001]

¶23

was willful and deliberate. This court would not substitute its opinion and finding which have been arrived at by the enquiry officer.

¶24

Accordingly this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned and uphold the punishment which has been duly sanctioned by the Governor.

¶25

The question raised by the learned counsel relating to delayed payment of his other retrial benefits also requires to be addressed to. It is noticed that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was dated 9^th March, 2001 while the petitioner’s gratuity had been released on 19^th October, 2005 in terms of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Pension) Rules 1996. During the pendency while the departmental enquiry is pending the authority is entitled to withhold the gratuity. However, after the conclusion of the departmental enquires and passing of the punishment order, a retired employee becomes entitled to release of his gratuity and other retiral benefits thereto apart from what has been withhold by the punishment order. Thus, after 9^th March, 2001 the petitioner was entitled to receive the gratuity and any other retiral benefits which had been withheld on account of the departmental enquiries against him. However, the respondents have released the said amount after a delay of almost four years. Gratuity once withheld has to be paid alongwith interest @ 9 % in terms of the Pension Rules 1996. Thus,it is held that the amount of gratuity released to the petitioner on 19^th October, 2005 would carry interest @9% for the period from 9^th March, 2001 to 19^th October, 2005. The said interest would be released to the petitioner within

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CW-4225/2001]

¶28

a period of two months. No other claims can be said to have been delayed. Accordingly, the petitioner can not be granted any other interest.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed so far as it relates to the order of punishment of stoppage of 25% pension for five years. However, the observation regarding payment of interest shall be implemented, as directed above.

¶30

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶31

Anu/4

Dr. Jc Verma v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Jc Verma v. State and Ors.

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

Mustak Khan Head Constable (Driver) No 10, Son of Shri Mohd. Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Govind Narayan Bairwa S/O Late Shri Rampal Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Mubina Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Dr Babu Lal Meena Vs State Medical and Healthanr