Lt.Governor of Delhi & Anr v. Dharam Vir Singh

ORDER No. 240

WHEREAS Sh. S.R. Goyal, Adhoc DANICS/Admn. Officer (MAMC) has applied for Voluntary Retirement w.e.f. 08.06.2008 (AN) Under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was forwarded by MAMC, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 24.4.2006.

¶2AND WHEREAS the said Sh. S.R. Goyal was placed under suspension vide order no.F.30/38/2003/SI/Part/file/180 dated 10.5.2006.

¶3NOW, THEREFORE, the Hon"ble LG being the Competent Authority in respect of Sh. S.R. Goyal, reject the notice of Voluntary Retirement from the Government service given by the said Sh. S.R. Goyal under the said Rules.

BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI

s/d

(S.P. SINGH) JT. SECRETARY (SERVICES)"

¶23The respondent at that time was posted in MAMC. It is common knowledge that such orders are conveyed through the office where the incumbent is posted at the relevant time.

Therefore, the Dy. Director (Admn.) through whom the said order was forwarded to the respondent on 15.6.2006 cannot be treated as a date when the order is "communicated" for the first time. The moment order leaves the office of the Jt. Secretary (Services), i.e.

7.6.2006, the process of communication thereof to the respondent started. In the present case itself, though the Lt. Governor rejected the application of the respondent well within time and the order on that basis was also issued much prior to the lapse of three months, merely because as per the normal procedure this communication was sent through MAMC, the date on which MAMC forwarded the communication should not be a material date to thwart the entire process. We, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and dismiss the OA filed by the respondent herein

(A.K. SIKRI)

JUDGE

May 30, 2008

(J.R. MIDHA) HP.

JUDGE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +WP(C) No.146/2008 and 158/2008 Date of Decision: 30.05.2008 #Lt. Governor & Anr. ....Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.146 & 158/2008 ! Through: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat with Ms.Latika Chaudhary and Ms.Nidhi Gupta Versus $Sh.Dharam Vir Singh ....Respondent in WP(C) No.146/2008 Sh.S.R. Goyal ….Respondent in WP(C) No.158/2008 ^ Through Mr.P.P. Khurana, Sr. Advocate Mr.Vikram Saini CORAM :- *THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1.Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. : 1. In both these writ petitions, common question of law has come up for consideration which touches on the interpretation of Rule 48 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Rules"). This rule allows an individual to seek retirement on completion of 30 years of qualifying service. After the aforesaid qualifying service, a Government servant, who wishes to retire, can do so by giving three months notice in writing. The question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether Rule 48 vests the Government with any discretion to reject the permission to retire in certain circumstances or this rule has automatic effect of retiring the said Government servant after the expiry of three months period. The Tribunal has accepted the second alternative by impugned judgments dated 26.11.2007 and 7.11.2007 respectively. Though two separate judgments were given by two different Benches of the Tribunal in these two cases, since the answer to the question of law, as given by the Tribunal in these two judgments, is identical and having regard to the commonality of the issues involved, we had heard both the petitions together with a purpose to decide the same by a common judgment to avoid repetition of the legal principles. For better understanding of the legal issue involved, we are taking up the facts of WP(C) No.146/2008. WP(C) No.146/2008 2. The respondent in this case is Sh.Dharamvir Singh, who had joined the service under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi on 14.6.1976. He joined the service as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC). In 1979 he was promoted as Grade II (DASS/UDC). Thereafter, in 1990 he was promoted as Grade I (DASS). In this manner, he completed 30 years of service in June 2006. We may, however, point out that in the year 1997 he was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules on the allegation that he had allowed a private person, namely, Sh.Madan Gulati to discharge official duty/work in his office for which punishment of reduction to lower post of Grade II (DASS) was inflicted on 26.7.2000. In November 2003, another memo was issued to him in view of observations of this Court passed in WP(C) No.6803/2000 concerning sale deed of property No. WZ-3539-A and WZ- 3540 in village Shakar Pur, Delhi, which was registered in 1995 in favour of the purchasers/parties by the respondent while functioning as Sub-Registrar, Janak Puri in spite of the fact that the property was on the land acquired by the DDA as far back as in 1966. This memo was thereafter followed by charge-sheet dated 18.10.2006. The respondent denied the charges and the departmental inquiry into the said charges was underway. At this juncture, on 9.7.2007 the respondent applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Pension Rules. This request of the respondent was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that major penalty proceedings had been initiated against him and thus, disciplinary authority was of the view that he cannot be given voluntary retirement till the conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings, which may lead to imposition of penalty of removal or dismissal from service. This rejection of the petitioner was challenged by the respondent by filing OA No.1773/2007 and the Tribunal has allowed the said OA declaring that after the l