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 5 amount, 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