SWP/962/2010 of GHULAM MOHD.RUNYAL Vs STATE TH.HOME DEPTT.AND ORS. on 29 December 2010

Conclusion

1) Whether approved for reportingin Press/Journal/ MediaYes11)Whether to be reportedin Digest/JournalYes The petitioner-Ghulam Mohammad Runyal, a Sub.

Inspector of Police in the Police Department of the State Government, retired from service, on superannuation,on January 31, 2010, has approached this Courtseeking quashing of the enquiry initiated/sought to beInitiated by the respondents against nim, besides aCommand to the State-respondents to release his.pensionary and other service benefits.

The grievance projected by him In the Writ Petition.Is that the enquiry proposed to be initiated against nimfor remaining in service and receiving salary from thestate Government for two years more than the date of retirement on the basis of his actual date of birth I.e..12.01.1950 as against 12.01.1952, as projected at thetime of entry into service, was unauthorized andunwarranted being against the provisions of Regulation168-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Clivil ServiceRegulations, 1956. Further grievance of the petitioner is"that the stoppage of pensionary and other servicebenefits by the respondents was without the authority oflQw..

Contesting the petitioners Claim, the respondents.say tnat they received complaints in August, 2009 to theeffect that the petitioner had entered the Governmentservice on the basis of a Certificate, which incorrectlyrecorded his date of birth as 12.01.1952 whereas his)actual date of birth was 12.01.1950 but the Petitioner.did not respond to the notices issued to nim in thisbehalf and thus having cheated and defrauded thedepartment causing wrongful loss to the StateExchequer, the petitioner was not entitled to the releaseof his pensionary and other service benefits, which arestated to have peen temporarily witnhela by thesuperintendent of Police, Ramban, while submitting the result of his enquiry to DIG Doda-Kishtwar-RambanRange, Headquarter Batote vide DPO Rambans No.Clt/Rbn/10/2 70-72 dated 31.03.2010.

Perused the pleadings and dadocuments placed orecords by the parties and neard their learned counsel.

Before proceeding further, reference needs to be.made to the provisions of Regulation 168-A of theJammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, which for facility of reference is reproduced hereunder:- BThe Government reserves to itself the right to order the)recovery from the pension of an officer of any amount on accountof losses found in Judicial or Department proceedings to havebeen caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of suchofficer during his service provided that- (a)such Departmental proceedings if not instituted while theofficer was on duty-.(1)|Shall not be instituted save with the sanction ofGovernment,(ii)|Shall be instituted before the officer's retirement fromservice or within a year from the date on which he was last onauty, wnicnever Is later;(lil)Shall be in respect of an event which took place notmore than one year before the date on which the officer was laston duty; and(IV) snall be conducted by sucn authority and In such placesas the Government may direct; (Db)all such departmental proceedings shall be conducted if theofficer concerned so requests in accordance with the procedureapplicable to departmental proceedings on which an order ofdismissal from service may be made; and)(C)such judicial proceedings if not instituted while the officerwas on duty, snail nave been instituted In accordance witn sub-Clauses (li) and (iil) of clause (a) above.”

It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired trom|

service on attaining the age of superannuation onJanuary 31, 2010. Until then, there was no Judicial orDepartmental proceedings, In whicn tt could be

ascertained that any amount on account of loss hadbeen caused to the Government by the negligence orfraud of the _ petitioner during his’ service. Trespondents appear to nave initiated only preliminaryproceedings in the year 2009 on the complaints:received by them that the petitioner nad stayed In thedepartment for two years more than the actual date, onwnicn he nad to retire on superannuation. |

In these circumstances, in view of the provisions otfSection 168-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service|Regulations, referred to hereinabove, no DepartmentalProceedings may be warranted against the petitionerunless the State Government had sanctioned initiation|of such proceedings.

Tne respondents are not stated to have obtained|Governmentsanction.for|noldingDepartmentalproceedings against the petitioner, till date.

Anotner impediment in noiding the DepartmentalProceedings against tne petitioner is that suchproceedings could be held only in respect of an event,which took place not more than one year before thedate on which the officer was last on duty.

In these circumstances, holding of Departmental|Proceedings against the petitioner for an event wnichoccurred about forty years ago and that too, without anyGovernment sanction, may not be warranted.

Tnatapart,tneDepartmentalOf|Judicialproceedings naving not commenced during the serviceof the petitioner, these cannot be so initiated in theabsence of the Government Sanction..

Thus, naving earned Pension and other servicebenefits, pursuant to his authorized retirement onsuperannuation, the temporary stoppage of the releaseof pensionary and other service benefits of thepetitioner, by the respondents, IS unwarranted, besidesbeing unjustified, in that, the petitioner cannot bedeprived of his property |.e. Pension and other servicebenefits save and except in accordance with law resortwnereto Is not stateq to nave been had by therespondents.

The action of respondent No.4 in directing thetemporary stoppage of the release of pensionary andother service benefits of the petitioner is, thus, found tobe against law.

The respondents are, therefore, required to be.commanded to release tne Pensionary anda otherservice benefits to the petitioner.

TNs)Petition,therefore,succeeds|and|IS,accordingly, allowed.

A direction snail issue to the respondents to)

release the pensionary and other service benefits, payable to the petitioner, under rules, within a period ofelgnt weeks.

JAMMU:|29.12.2010|Vinod.

(J. P. Singh) |

Juage