Ram Chander vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2040 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Judgment Reserved on: April 06, 2011
                          Judgment Delivered on: April 08, 2011

+                       WP(C) 3197/1997

        RAM CHANDER                               ..... Petitioner
                Through:      Mr.K.Ramesh, Advocate and
                              Ms.R.Archana, Advocate.

                              versus

        UOI & ORS.                              .....Respondents
                  Through:    Mr.Gaurav Liberhan, Advocate

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?
     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. It is a case of both sides stating not only incorrect facts but also suppressing the correct facts. It is a case of faulty pleadings. It is a case where victory or defeat would be decided on points akin to a boxing round where the winner who earns more points succeed. The bout does not result in a knock-out.

2. Petitioner desires that the order dated 25.4.1996, compulsorily retiring him from service with effect from 31.7.1996 and the Appellate Order dated 15.3.1997 rejecting the Statutory Appeal, be set aside.

3. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition the petitioner pleads that due to his ill luck he became the victim of "the Pride and Prejudice" of his immediate boss.

4. How could the petitioner become the victim of a pride and simultaneously a prejudice, has not been explained by any pleadings in the writ petition.

5. This is just a sample of the pleadings which we have noted in the instant writ petition.

6. Proceeding further, relevant would it be to note that an inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was initiated against the petitioner on 3 charges. The charges read as under:-

"Article of Charge-I

That the said Shri Ram Chander GS No.152742K SS II while functioning as a Holder of Fresh Group and other stores at HQ 524 SS&TC (GREF) for the period 1-4-94 to 2-1-95 had careless attitude in maintenance of fresh ration account leading to over- drawals resulting in loss to the tune of `37,733.87 (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand seven hundred thirty three and paise eighty seven only) at the time of his handling over the charge on 2-1-95.

Article of Charge-II

That during the aforesaid period from 1-4-94 to 2-1- 95 while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Ram Chander GS No.152742K SS II, did not maintain proper accounts of fresh rations received from ASC Supply Depot Lalgarh Jattan (Rajasthan) thus had the careless attitude in handling the official documents.

Article of Charge-III

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri Ram

Chander, GS No.152742K SSI placed the demands of fresh ration to ASC Supply and Comp Pl Balgarh Jattan (Rajasthan) and obtained the same correctly but did not issue the fresh ration properly to demanding units, resulted in a loss of `37,733.87 (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand seven hundred thirty three and paise eighty seven only), to the State."

7. The memo under which charges were served is dated 2.4.1996.

8. Annexure-III to the memorandum dated 2.4.1996 lists the relied upon documents and the same are as under:-

      (a)    Copy of the Court of Inquiry.
      (b)    Recommendation of CEC.
      (c)    DG's recommendation/order.

9. In paragraph 4 and 5 of the writ petition, petitioner pleads as under:-

"4. That in all fairness to enable petitioner to prepare his defence, petitioner in his application dated 22nd April, 1996 requested for the supply of copies of these documents as permissible under the extant rules.

5. That instead of furnishing the documents requested for preparation of defence statement, petitioner was served on 23rd April, 1997, impugned Notice of Compulsory Retirement which is not only against the established judicial dicta that compulsory retirement should not be adopted as a shortcut to the holding of the Departmental Inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules."

10. Needless to state, it is the case of the petitioner that to prepare his defence, he requested for the relied upon documents to be furnished to him and grievance raised is that rather than supply the documents, the department compulsorily retired him from service on 23.4.1997.

11. Relevant would it be to note that with respect to the charge-sheet no evidence was led and in respect of compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service, the respondents, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, have pleaded as under:-

"Para 4: The contents of this para are denied. It is stated that the petitioner never asked for the copies of any documents rather he admitted all the charges and expressed his desire to proceed on voluntary retirement as per his application dated 12 Apr 96 (copy attached at Annexure-I). The petitioner was trying to avoid penalty for the misconduct shown at para 2 above which was not acceptable to the Department as it would cut at the route of discipline in the Organisation. His statement that he claimed a copy of the documents is an afterthought, hence not sustainable.

Para 5: The contents of this para are denied. It is stated that the petitioner in his own volition and voluntarily admitted at the charges/ guilty/ misconduct, thus the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on Sh.Ram Chandra was to meet the ends of justice. The penalty imposed based on admission/confession of guilt is sustainable as per judgment UP AIR 1966 SC 40."

12. With reference to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is apparent that according to the respondents, the petitioner never asked for any document and on the contrary expressed a desire to proceed on voluntary retirement.

13. But we note that the said defence is palpably false inasmuch as learned counsel for the respondent concedes that on 11.9.1996, the respondents had informed the petitioner that copy of Court of Inquiry could not be given to him inasmuch as he had been charged under the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

14. We express displeasure at the manner in which the counter affidavit has been filed by making a false response to paragraph 4 of the writ petition.

15. But, what has the petitioner done? With respect to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, in the first paragraph whereof there is a denial of the petitioner asking for any documents, it is subsequently pleaded that the petitioner desired to proceed on voluntary retirement, the response of the petitioner in the rejoinder is as under:-

"Para 4: Denied. Petitioner did made a specific request for supply of vital documents prepared to sustain Articles of charges which has been specifically denied by respondents in its letter dated 11 Sept.96 (Annexure P6)."

16. The petitioner has not responded to the categorical plea raised in the counter affidavit and made good with reference to Annexure-I that on 12.4.1996 petitioner desired to proceed on voluntary retirement. Thus, said averment has to be treated as having been admitted.

17. The petitioner's letter seeking voluntary retirement being the letter dated 12.4.1996 annexed as Annexure-I reads as under:-

      "From :     GS 152742K SS 2
                  Ram Chander
                  524 SS & TG (GREF)
                  C/O 56 APO

      To

      The Commander,
      HQ 49 BRTF,
      C/O 56 APO

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE

Sir,

Reference your HQ Memorandum No.:1534/Fresh Ration/28/E1D dated 2nd April 1996.

I beg to submit the following few lines for your kind and sympathetic favourable action please.

That, due to oversight some discrepancies occurred in the Fresh action Accounts of 524 SS&TC(GREF) and my conscience is not allowing me to continue in service.

Further, my wife is a bed patient and continues and regular treatment is required, for which no male member is available at my home. And my presence at home is very essential to look after my ailing wife.

In view of above, I would like to proceed on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 31st July 1996 (AN) so that I may provide necessary treatment to my wife. I, therefore, request your goodself that sanction may kindly be accorded to proceed me on voluntary retirement.

I was appointed in GREF w.e.f. 31st October 1970 and have completed 25 years 05 months and 23 day service as on date.

I hope your goodself will sympathetically consider my case and allow me to proceed on voluntary retirement by 31st July, 1996.

Thanking you Sir,

Sd/-

(GS 152742K SS II) Ram Chander"

18. To fast track the further narration of facts, suffice would it be to state that whereas the petitioner's grievance is that documents relied upon were never supplied to him and this has vitiated the verdict of guilt against him, respondents

assert that the petitioner never asked for any documents and pleaded guilty in the form of tendering the letter dated 12.4.1996 which contains an admission of guilt. Petitioner requested to be voluntarily retired from service. Thus, there was no necessity to record evidence. As per the respondents, consistent with the plea of guilt and harmonized with the request to voluntarily retire him, penalty of compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits was inflicted. As per the respondents, whether petitioner stood voluntary retired or compulsorily retired with full pension; it made no difference.

19. We note that the petitioner is receiving pension.

20. In view of the fact that the petitioner admitted guilt as per his letter dated 12.4.1996 and sought to be voluntarily retired from service, we find no infirmity in the respondents compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and paying him the pensionary benefits inasmuch as the petitioner had served for more than 20 years i.e. had rendered the pensionable service.

21. The writ petition is dismissed.

22. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE APRIL 08, 2011 dk