Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 October, 2016
$~41.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION(C) No. 10052/2016
Date of decision: 26th October, 2016
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shanker Raju, Mr. Nilansh Gaur &
Ms. Himantika Saini Gaur, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC & Mr.
Abhishek Ghai, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order dated 19th September, 2016 passed by
the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for
short) dismissing OA No. 4414/2012.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Superintendent in Service Tax
Commissionerate at New Delhi, vide letter dated 29th August, 2012 had
submitted a request for voluntary retirement under Rule 48A of the Central
W.P. (C) No. 10052/2016 Page 1 of 4
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stating that due to personal reasons he
would like to retire under the aforesaid provision with effect from 30th
November, 2012.
3. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities had not
refused permission before the expiry of the period specified in the said
notice, i.e., 30th November, 2012. The petitioner was informed of the
refusal for the first time only on 14th December, 2012. Accordingly, the
petitioner had voluntarily retired as per mandate of Rule 48A on 30 th
November, 2012. It is a case of deemed acceptance.
4. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention of the petitioner
for several good and cogent reasons. The respondents have placed on
record order dated 2nd November, 2012, which was signed by the Deputy
Commissioner (P & A), Service Tax, New Delhi on 8th November, 2012.
This letter/communication records that the request of voluntary retirement
had not been accepted by the competent authority in view of DGoV
(Director General of Vigilance) advice for initiation of RDA (Regular
Departmental Action) for major penalty proceedings against the petitioner.
This letter was addressed to the petitioner, who was then working as
Superintendent, Adjudication, Service Tax, New Delhi. This letter was
sent by speed post as per the proof of dispatch placed on record. The letter
was posted to the petitioner's permanent address at Bhilai. The Tribunal
has also recorded that attempts were made to serve the petitioner by hand
W.P. (C) No. 10052/2016 Page 2 of 4
at his office through Ranvir Singh, Lower Division Clerk on 9 th November,
2012. The petitioner had refused to accept service. In these circumstances,
it was reasonable for the Tribunal to draw the inference that the petitioner
was deliberately obstructing service and not accepting the same. Certainly,
the petitioner was fully aware and conscious that the request for voluntary
retirement had been rejected as major penalty proceedings were to be
initiated against the petitioner. Ignorance expressed by the petitioner is
rather inane. We do not think, in the aforesaid facts, the impugned order
requires interference.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, had
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Lal versus
Union of India and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 393. The said judgment refers
to the case of voluntary retirement and the issue addressed was different.
The requirement to communicate acceptance, it is observed, arises when
the member continues to work. When the member has by his own conduct
abandoned services, there was severance of relationship of master and
servant, which takes place immediately on acceptance of notice. The said
decision has no relevance in the present factual matrix as the competent
authority had on 8th November, 2012 rejected the request for voluntary
retirement.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that alongwith the rejoinder the
petitioner had filed documents procured from the office of the Department
W.P. (C) No. 10052/2016 Page 3 of 4
of Posts to show that the letter sent by speed post vide registration No.
ED80033660 2 IN-26907 was not received. This, according to us, would
not be of any consequence in the facts of the present case. The letter was
dispatched and sent by speed post on 9th November, 2012. It was sought to
be served personally on the petitioner, but he had refused to accept and
give receipt.
7. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2016
VKR
