- (1.) Sri Lalit Shukla, appearing for the respondents, stated that the facts are not being disputed, as pleaded in the writ petition and only a legal question is involved, therefore, the petition may be decided finally, as respondents have instructed not to file counter affidavit. Sri Sudeep Kumar, appearing for the petitioner also says that the matter may be decided finally. The petitioner, who was working as Manager (FO), Grade-III in Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PCDF') has been denied payment of gratuity to the extent of Rs. 2,77,750/- alongwith the amount of Group Insurance amounting to Rs. 8,616/-, leave encashment and arrears of Dearness Allowance.
(2.) The petitioner belongs to centralized cadre of service of PCDF. The petitioner was initially appointed in the PCDF on 20.9.1985 on the post of Management Trainee (FO) and his services were regularized on 1.11.1988 as Manager (FO), Grade-III. Thereafter the petitioner continued to work as Manager (FO), Grade-III and on 25.7.2006, he tendered his resignation. His resignation was accepted by the competent authority on 22.12.2006 with effect from the afternoon of 24.8.2006. Though the petitioner's resignation was accepted admittedly on 22.12.2006 with effect from the afternoon of 24.8.2006, but the pending departmental inquiries against him were directed to be continued, in which the petitioner participated without any protest and ultimately three separate orders of recovery were passed against him, namely, (1) order dated 5.4.2007 (recovery of Rs. 4,600/-); (2) order dated 22.10.2007 (recovery of Rs. 10,215/-); and (3) order dated 6.8.2009 (recovery of Rs. 1,14,859.20). These three orders are also under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner clarifies that though the aforesaid amounts, if totalled together, would come much less than Rs. 3,08,611/- i.e. the amount of gratuity, but because of the audit objection, an amount of Rs. 1,64,985/- has also been withheld. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforesaid orders submitted that once the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority, merely because disciplinary inquiries which were initiated since before, were allowed to continue, would not give any authority to the PCDF or its authorities to continue with the enquiry or to pass any order for recovery, as once the resignation was accepted, the relationship of master and servant ceased and there is no rule/regulation under which a person belonging to centralized services could have been proceeded with the departmental enquiry after his retirement or resignation. He also submitted that there is no provision under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which permits such withholding of gratuity, as the petitioner's case does not fall within the exception given under section 4(6) of the Act.;