HARDIAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in V.J. Hospital, Amritsar vide appointment letter dated 5.5.1962 issued by the Director, Research & Medical Education, Punjab. Petitioner joined on 17.5.1962. He was promoted as Assistant-cum-Accountant and posted in the office of Principal, Medical College, Amritsar w.e.f. 8.4.1976. Petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 24.5.1976 for having contracted a second marriage with one Smt. Nirmal Arora without obtaining prior permission and divorcing his first wife. Order of termination was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 2795 of 1976. This petition was allowed vide judgement dated 31.3.1983, whereby the termination of the petitioner was set aside and he was granted all the consequential benefits. In implementation of the judgement, petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 10.8.1983 (Annexure P- 2). It is alleged that in compliance with the order of reinstatement, petitioner reported for duty on 30.9.1983. It is stated that petitioner made an application dated 30.9.1983 protesting that he has not been allowed to join in terms of the court judgement. It is also alleged that petitioner was neither granted promotion from the date persons junior to him were promoted nor any arrears of salary etc. as per the judgement of the High Court has been paid to him. Petitioner, accordingly, filed a contempt petition being COCP No. 55 of 1984. This contempt petition was decided vide order dated 17.5.1984 with the following directions :-

(2.) Petitioner, however, reported for duty a day earlier i.e. 23.5.1984. It is alleged that he was not permitted to join on the pretext that he should get prior permission from the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab. Petitioner wrote a letter dated 25.5.1984 to the Director that he has not been permitted to join. The Director of Health Services informed the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur that he is competent to allow the petitioner to join for duty in view of the judgement of the High Court. Civil Surgeon, accordingly, asked the petitioner to join his duty at P.H.U., Gharota. Petitioner, accordingly, submitted his joining report on 26.7.1984 at P.H.U., Gharota. After joining the duty petitioner served a notice dated 7.8.1984 seeking premature retirement and also deposited three months salary in lieu of the notice period. It is stated that respondent No. 2 did not pass any order on his application for premature retirement and thus after expiry of three months period, petitioner wrote a letter dated 3.12.1984 to the S.M.O., P.H.U., Gharota, Distt. Gurdaspur for release of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. Petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 14.12.1984 containing a charge that he absented from duty w.e.f. 16.7.1979 to 29.9.1983 and then from 1.10.1983 to 25.7.1984 and from 8.8.1984 till the date of service of the charge sheet. Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 24.12.1984. Petitioner submitted his reply explaining that alleged absence from duty w.e.f. 16.7.1979 to 29.9.1983 was the period when the writ petition was filed by the petitioner against his termination and which period has been treated as spent on duty vide order dated 10.8.1983 and period from 1.10.1983 to 25.7.1984 was the period when the petitioner had asked for the posting. Similarly about the period w.e.f. 8.8.1984 till the service of charge sheet, it was communicated that he had served a notice seeking premature retirement during this period. Aggrieved of the charge sheet petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the charge sheet and the departmental proceedings in the Court of Additional Sub Judge, Amritsar on 22.4.1988. This suit was dismissed, however, certain observations were made that the petitioner would be afforded reasonable opportunity during the course of inquiry proceedings and inquiry shall be completed within a period of four months. He was also granted liberty to challenge the adverse order, if, any passed. A further observation was made that the claim of the petitioner for premature retirement shall be treated by the competent authority within the reasonable period. Petitioner made another application dated 1.12.1989 to the respondent No. 2 to accord sanction to the request of the petitioner for premature retirement and payment of his dues. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 25.10.1992 communicating him that the charges against him have been proved as per the report of the Inquiry Officer and he was asked to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 22.11.1990. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 24.1.1991 rejecting the request of the petitioner for premature retirement on the ground that he has served only 24 hours notice for premature retirement and also deposited three months salary without prior approval of the competent authority and the notice is not in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1995 and instructions of the State Govt. dated 3.8.1987 (Annexure P-16). Another order dated 6.3.1991 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 8.8.1984 pursuant to the inquiry (Annexure P-17). The order of termination was, however, modified vide order dated 28.1.1992 and instead of terminating the services from 8.8.1984, his services were ordered to be terminated with immediate effect and the period of absence from 8.8.1984 has been treated as 'dies non' (Annexure P-18). Petitioner has challenged the orders Annexures P-16 to P-18 in the present writ petition.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that he had sought premature retirement by serving notice for premature retirement as he had completed more than 20 years of service. The respondents did not reject the request for premature retirement within three months and thus on the expiry of the period of three months, petitioner is deemed to have retired from service. It is, accordingly, contended that rejection of his request after more than six years is illegal and similarly the charge sheet and consequential order of termination are also illegal as the petitioner has been terminated after the premature retirement.