0

According to second proviso to Rule 42 (1) (a) of the Pension Rules, a Government servant against whom disciplinary action is under consideration by the Appointing Authority, such Government servant shall not be allowed to retire from the services, without prior permission in writing of the Appointing Authority: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

The writ petition stands allowed and is hereby quashed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of DR. NAVED ANWAR V. THE STATE OF M.P. through HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon vide order dated 08.08.1991, in the Animal Husbandry Department and was posted in District Jhabua. On 18.08.2011, he was posted in the Home Department, on deputation, as Veterinary Officer in RAPTC and looking to his services, his deputation was extended from time to time till 23.02.2021. The petitioner also claims that his services in the RAPTC were also appreciated for which, he was also given a letter of appreciation dated 28/03/2017 which is placed on record. The case of the petitioner is that his tenure on deputation did not go well with the appointment of the then Additional Director General of Police, RAPTC, Shri Varun Kapoor; and hence vide application dated 07.01.2021, he asked for cancellation of his deputation, and his next posting to his Parent Department which also resulted in recalling of the petitioner from RAPTC to his Parent Department vide order dated 23.02.2021. However, it is alleged that the petitioner was not relieved from RAPTC only on account of the said ADG, Varun Kapoor. A letter in this regard was also sent by the petitioner with a request for his relieving from RAPTC so that he can join at Dewas. It is further the case of the petitioner that his daughter is residing in Dubai and as she was unwell, on 07.10.2021, the petitioner applied for leave of the parent Department to visit her daughter in Dubai and the Parent Department of the petitioner gave its permission vide order dated 10.11.2021, allowing him to leave India from 24.11.2021 to 08.12.2021, to visit Dubai. However, the same permission was withheld deliberately by RAPTC at the instance of the said ADG, which led the petitioner to apply for voluntary retirement from the services on personal reasons; and for this, the petitioner submitted his application on 15.11.2021 for Voluntary Retirement by depositing part of his salary, as per Rule 42 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (herein after referred to as, ‘the Pension Rules’). Subsequently, the petitioner also came to know that his application to visit Dubai was deliberately delayed as it was sanctioned on 20.11.2021, i.e., after the petitioner applied for Voluntary Retirement, although it was not communicated to him in time also.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, this court is of the considered opinion that on a harmonious reading of Rule 42(1)(a) of the Pension Rules and Rule 20 of the Rules of 1966, what can be culled out is that for the purposes of the application of Rule 42(1)(a) of the Pension Rules, in a case where an application for voluntary retirement has been filed by a person on deputation, the borrowing authority shall be deemed to be the appointing authority for the purpose of Rule 20 of the 1976 Rules. Thus, it is held that the Parent Department, i.e., Animal Husbandry & Dairy Department was not competent to issue the charge sheet to the petitioner for an incident which took place while he was on deputation in RAPTC hence the charge sheet dated 02.12.2021 issued by the parent department is liable to be quashed. In such facts and circumstances, Writ Petition No.3101/2022 stands allowed; and the charge sheet dated 02.12.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry & Dairy Department, Bhopal (respondent No.1) is hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioner’s application for Voluntary Retirement is allowed and the respondents are directed to accord the petitioner all such benefits emanating from his retirement as on 15.11.2021. The retiral benefits be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat