RSA No. 103 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.103 of 2005
Decided on : 25-03-2009
Roshan Lal
....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana through Secretary Revenue Department, Haryana,
Chandigarh and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the appellant
Ms. Rajat Goel, AAG, Haryana
MAHESH GROVER, J
This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of
the First Appellate Court dated 18.4.2003.
The plaintiff-appellant during his tenure of service was found
guilty of mis-appropriation after regular inquiry was held against him. After
following the due process of law, the respondents by resorting to the
provisions of Rule 4 compulsorily retired him from service as a measure of
punishment.
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit that he was entitled to
pension and based his claim on Rule 5.32A.
The respondents who contested the suit pleaded that the
appellant had been compulsorily retired from service as a measure of
punishment and that Rule 4 contemplates compulsory retirement as one of
the major punishment which can be inflicted upon a delinquent employee.
RSA No. 103 of 2005 2
It was thus contended that since they had resorted to the provisions of Rule
4 therefore, the benefit of pension etc. which is available to a person who is
retired compulsorily pursuant to provisions of Rule 5.32A are not available
to the appellant.
Following issues were struck by the learned Trial Court upon
which the parties led their respective evidence:-
1. Whether the order dated 22.6.1993 passed by defendant no.2
retiring the plaintiff compulsorily is illegal, null and void and
liable to be set aside?OPP.
2. Whether the order dated 4.10.93/6.10.93 are also illegal, null
and void?OPP.
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form?OPD.
4. Relief
After appraisal of evidence before it, learned Trial Court
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
In appeal filed by the State of Haryana the findings of learned
Trial Court were upset by learned First Appellate Court.
This has resulted in the instant regular second appeal.
It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant with
reference to Rule 5.32A that he has completed 21 years of service with the
respondents and consequently he was entitled to the benefit of pension.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated
that Rule 4 provides for compulsory retirement as a measure of punishment
which was awarded to the appellant and since he was granted the
punishment after following the due process of law he could not claim any
RSA No. 103 of 2005 3
benefit of pension.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the impugned judgment.
Rule 5.32-A is extracted hereunder:-
(a) A government employee is entitled, on his resignation
being accepted, to a retiring pension after completing qualifying
service of not less than 30 years, but a competent authority may
permit the pension to be granted in Special Cases where the
qualifying service is not less than 25 years.”
Similarly, Rule 4 is also extracted hereunder:-
Penalities (1) the following penalities may, for good and
sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on a Government
employee namely:-
Minor Penalities
(i) ——-
(ii) -------
(iii) -------
(iv) -------
(v) ------
Major Penalities
(vi) ------
(vii) ------
(viii) Compulsory retirement.
(ix) -------
(x) -------
Explanation:- The following shall not amount to a penalty
within the meaning of this rule, namely:-
(i) ------
(ii) ------
(iii) ------
RSA No. 103 of 2005 4
(iv) ------
(v) ------
(vi) compulsorily retirement of a Government employee in
accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement.
A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law reflects that both
these provisions are on a separate pedestal; one which contemplates
compulsory retirement of a Government employee in accordance with
provisions relating to his superannuation, retirement or based on the opinion
of the employer who wants to weed out the dead wood and the other ie.
Rule 4 in which compulsory retirement is contemplated as a major
punishment. Both these Rules being independent of each other cannot be
read into each other. There is no denial to the fact that the appellant was
proceeded against departmentally and held guilty of mis-appropriation and
after issuing proper show cause notice and complying with other legal
niceties, he was awarded the major punishment of compulsory retirement by
resorting to the provisions of Rule 4. He is, thus, clearly precluded from the
benefits of Rule 5.32A. A delinquent employee who suffers a major
punishment for his acts and conduct during the tenure of his service cannot
expect to be rewarded of other benefits and more so when the Rule prohibits
the grant of such a benefit. It has further been contended by learned counsel
for the appellant that according to Rule 6.162 there is no bar to his being
granted the pension.
I am afraid that this contention is totally misplaced. Rule 6.16
is also extracted hereunder:-
“6.16. For Government employees referred to in
rule 1.2-BH, the amount of superannuation, retiring, invalid and
compensation gratuity and pension will be the appropriate
RSA No. 103 of 2005 5amount, set out in the table below, and no additional or special
Additional Pension will be granted:”
The aforesaid Rule contemplates the manner and mode in
which the compensation, gratuity and pension and the appropriate amount to
be awarded is to be given in cases of employees referred to in Rule who
sunperannuate, retire or are invalidated etc. It nowhere contemplates the
grant of pension to delinquent employee who suffers major punishment.
Thus, no ground to interfere is made. That apart no substantial question of
law has been shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court and
the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
March 25 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge