Dr. Rajnish Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127578
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-10-2014
AppellantDr. Rajnish Sharma
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana, at chandigarh letters patent appeal no.213 of 2014 (o&m) date of decision: 10.2.2014 dr. rajnish sharma ..appellant versus state of punjab and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh. hon'ble mr.justice harinder singh sidhu. present: mr.krishan singh dadwal, advocate for the appellant. jasbir singh, judge (oral) this appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2014 vide which appeal was dismissed taking note of a fact that after its filing, large number of adjournments were sought on one pretext or the other., on many dates, counsel for the appellant failed to appear in the court. it was stated by learned single judge that a deliberate attempt has been made to delay the matter and on account of that, the writ petition was dismissed. we are not inclined to differ the with the view taken by the learned single judge. no satisfactory justification has been given in the grounds of appeal for not arguing the matter on a large number of dates. be that as it may, we have preferred to hear this appeal on merits. the appellant filed civil writ petition no.18822 of 2012 with a prayer to set aside charge sheet dated 31.5.2012 (annexure p10) and bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.213 of 2014 (o&m) 2 for revocation of his suspension order dated 28.12.2010 (annexure p7).it was an allegation against the appellant that he was referring the patients coming to the government hospital for treatment to the private persons for mr.etc.some complaints were made against the appellant. the appellant, it appears started making excuses and as a defence, it was said that some higher officer is out to harm his career. notwithstanding said letters.the appellant was suspended vide order dated 28.12.2010 (annexure p7).his headquarters was fixed at government medical college, patiala. it appears that before receipt of above said order, the appellant also submitted the letter dated 23.12.2010 seeking premature retirement from service. notice was to take effect from 24.2.2011. however, when coming to know about pending action to be taken against him on 25.12.2010 he wrote a letter to the secretary, medical education and research, punjab stating that he had deposited three months' salary and that he be immediately retired prematurely. it appears that the said letter was a clever device to avoid any action which may be taken against him as the appellant had already sent a notice to get premature retirement. the appellant was served a charge sheet on 31.5.2012. he has approached this court to challenge charge sheet. it is primary contention of counsel for the appellant that once notice to get premature retirement with immediate effect was issued and three months salary was deposited with the competent authority, no action can be taken against the appellant. the above said view is not supported by the rules i.e.punjab civil services (premature bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.213 of 2014 (o&m) 3 retirement) rules, 1975 (in short “the rules”.).reading of rule 3.1 makes it very clear that the government servant is to give a notice to retire from service on a particular date on completion of 20 years of service. it is specifically mentioned that no employee under suspension shall take retirement from service except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority. rule 3(a)(b) & (c) of the rules reads thus:- “3(a) at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service. (b) the notice of voluntary retirement given under this sub-rule shall require acceptance of the appropriate authority. (c) where the appropriate authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.”. it is clearly stated that request of premature retirement shall have to be accepted by the competent authority. in the present case, the appellant sent a notice on 23.12.2010 to seek voluntary retirement from service giving date after three months, however, when he came to know that some action is going to be taken against him, then he sent a notice that he be retired from service forthwith. there is nothing on record to show that the request was accepted. the very fact that the appellant has applied for revocation of suspension shows that employment contract still subsists. no case is made out to cause interference by this court in the present case. bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letters patent appeal no.213 of 2014 (o&m) 4 dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge (harinder singh sidhu) judge february 10, 2014 “dk”. bhardwaj deepak kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No.213 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.2.2014 Dr.

Rajnish Sharma ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and Others ..Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu.

Present: Mr.Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Jasbir Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.01.2014 vide which appeal was dismissed taking note of a fact that after its filing, large number of adjournments were sought on one pretext or the other., On many dates, counsel for the appellant failed to appear in the Court.

It was stated by learned Single Judge that a deliberate attempt has been made to delay the matter and on account of that, the writ petition was dismissed.

We are not inclined to differ the with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

No satisfactory justification has been given in the grounds of appeal for not arguing the matter on a large number of dates.

Be that as it may, we have preferred to hear this appeal on merits.

The appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.18822 of 2012 with a prayer to set aside charge sheet dated 31.5.2012 (Annexure P10) and Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.213 of 2014 (O&M) 2 for revocation of his suspension order dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure P7).It was an allegation against the appellant that he was referring the patients coming to the Government Hospital for treatment to the private persons for Mr.etc.Some complaints were made against the appellant.

The appellant, it appears started making excuses and as a defence, it was said that some higher officer is out to harm his career.

Notwithstanding said letteRs.the appellant was suspended vide order dated 28.12.2010 (Annexure P7).His headquarters was fixed at Government Medical College, Patiala.

It appears that before receipt of above said order, the appellant also submitted the letter dated 23.12.2010 seeking premature retirement from service.

Notice was to take effect from 24.2.2011.

However, when coming to know about pending action to be taken against him on 25.12.2010 he wrote a letter to the Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Punjab stating that he had deposited three months' salary and that he be immediately retired prematurely.

It appears that the said letter was a clever device to avoid any action which may be taken against him as the appellant had already sent a notice to get premature retirement.

The appellant was served a charge sheet on 31.5.2012.

He has approached this Court to challenge charge sheet.

It is primary contention of counsel for the appellant that once notice to get premature retirement with immediate effect was issued and three months salary was deposited with the competent authority, no action can be taken against the appellant.

The above said view is not supported by the Rules i.e.Punjab Civil Services (Premature Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.213 of 2014 (O&M) 3 Retirement) Rules, 1975 (in short “the Rules”.).Reading of Rule 3.1 makes it very clear that the Government servant is to give a notice to retire from service on a particular date on completion of 20 years of service.

It is specifically mentioned that no employee under suspension shall take retirement from service except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority.

Rule 3(a)(b) & (c) of the Rules reads thus:- “3(a) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service.

(b) The notice of voluntary retirement given under this sub-rule shall require acceptance of the appropriate authority.

(c) Where the appropriate authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.”

.

It is clearly stated that request of premature retirement shall have to be accepted by the competent authority.

In the present case, the appellant sent a notice on 23.12.2010 to seek voluntary retirement from service giving date after three months, however, when he came to know that some action is going to be taken against him, then he sent a notice that he be retired from service forthwith.

There is nothing on record to show that the request was accepted.

The very fact that the appellant has applied for revocation of suspension shows that employment contract still subsists.

No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present case.

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Letters Patent Appeal No.213 of 2014 (O&M) 4 Dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge February 10, 2014 “DK”.

Bhardwaj Deepak Kumar 2014.02.19 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document