The present petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2000 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 193 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent herein by quashing the order dated 13.03.1997 passed by Deputy District Development Officer, and directed that the appellant be given due date of promotion and he be paid salary and other consequential benefits within three months.
2. Taking note of the facts in brief, respondent was working as Junior Clerk in the respondent Panchayat, with effect from 25.08.1964. he was given charge sheet dated 19.10.1982 for a single day's absence, as he did not report on duty after his 45 days of sanctioned leave from 14.12.1978 to 28.12.1978. The reason the respondent could not join duty on the 46th day, as stated in his reply to the show cause notice, was that he fell suddenly ill. Subsequently, he submitted medical certificate for the one day's absence on that ground.
2.1 Pursuant to the said charge sheet, a departmental inquiry was held and ultimately the respondent was removed from service by order dated 03.05.1988, which was communicated to him on 07.02.1989 after nine months. It may also be mentioned that while the charge sheet was issued after four years on 19.10.1982, the inquiry officer came to be appointed after passage of further four years. It was the case of the respondent that by adopting delaying tactics in the inquiry he was kept away from being considered for promotion and was deprived of other benefits due to him under the guise of pending departmental proceedings. He challenged his removal before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 570 of 1989 and succeeded. The Tribunal in its judgement and order dated 26.07.1990 set aside the order of the penalty of removal dated 03.05.1988 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 06.11.1989 of the appellate authority. The authorities were directed to reinstate the respondent on his original post with all consequential benefits. In that order dated 26.07.1990 allowing the appeal the Tribunal issued directions also in respect of treatment of the period of respondent's absence from 29.12.1978.
2.2 It transpires from the record that despite the Tribunal passing the order of setting aside the penalty and directing reinstatement of the respondent with consequential benefits, the same was not implemented by the authorities under one or another pretext. The respondent-employee was forced to file Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 1995 in that appeal.
2.3. It further transpires that in the meantime with effect from 31.03.1993, the respondent opted for voluntary retirement. In Miscellaneous Civil Application No.53 of 1995, the Tribunal passed order dated 06.01.1995 directing the authorities to afford hearing to him and pass necessary orders. Pursuant to that the District Development Officer, Nadiad heard the respondent and by order dated 31.07.1997 held that the he was not entitled to promotion and other service benefits as he had opted for voluntary retirement. It was that order dated 31.07.1997 which came to be set aside by the judgment and order of the Tribunal in Appeal No.193 of 1997, which is under challenge in the present petition.
3. With above background of facts, this court while issuing notice on 04.05.2001 passed following interim order:-
""Notice for final disposal returnable on 13/7/2001.
2. After hearing both the parties the Court may on the returnable date pass an order to the effect that the judgment of the Civil Services Tribunal may be implemented for the benefit of respondent Shri Kantilal S. Patel only for the purpose of computation and payment of his retirement benefits, but not for the purpose of paying him arrears of difference of salary for the intervening period till the date of retirement."
4. It appears that thereafter the parties appeared through their respective advocates and on 28.06.2002 a further order was passed issuing Rule. This court recorded statement made by learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Mishra that the Department had already complied with the directions given by this court in its order dated 04.05.2001 aforementioned. When the present petition was posted on board for final hearing today, this court heard learned advocate Mr. R.A. Mishra appearing for the respondent and learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta for the respondent. They invited attention of the court to the interim orders passed by this court referred to above.
5. From the facts of the case briefly stated hereinabove, it is seen that the respondent was given a show cause notice/charge sheet in respect of one day's absence, after passage of four years on 19.10.1982 and the inquiry officer was appointed in 1986. The order of removal was passed in 1988, which was set aside by the competent tribunal by order dated 26.07.1990 and the petitioner-Panchayat was directed to reinstate the respondent with consequential service benefits. That order was not challenged. Not only that the Panchayat sat tight and did not comply with the order. As a result, the rights of the petitioner flowing from Tribunal's order remained only on paper for long. In the impugned order the Tribunal noticed and observed that though all the issues were settled in the previous proceedings of Appeal No.570 of 1989 as well as the judgment and order dated 26.07.1990 read with the order in Miscellaneous Application No.53 of 1995 the Panchayat authorities were litigating and reagitating the issues again and again.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent would be justified in submitting that the aforementioned interim orders were passed by the court having rightful regard to the facts of the case. It is true that what is observed in interim order dated 04.05.2001 balances the rights of the parties, inasmuch as thereby respondent who now has retired would be able to reap the due fruits of the judgment and order of the Tribunal which is in his favour in respect of the pension. On the other hand, when he is not to be paid the arrears of salary, the petitioner District Panchayat would not be saddled with any heavy or excessive financial liability. It may be noticed pertinently that on the subsequent date the learned advocate for the petitioner informed the court that the Department had complied with the directions of the order dated 04.05.2001.
7. In light of above facts and circumstances, it would be eminently just and proper and would serve the ends of justice if the present petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order passed by this court on 04.05.2001 by requiring the petitioner to implement the impugned order of the Tribunal by giving benefits to the respondent arising therefrom in respect of his retiral benefits only, without paying arrears of salary.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by ordering that the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal in Appeal No.193 of 1997 shall be implemented for the benefit of respondent herein, only for the purpose of computation and payment of his retirement benefits, but not for the purpose of paying him arrears of difference of salary for the intervening period till the date of retirement. The petitioner Panchayat shall pay to the respondent the arrears payable by virtue of revision in the pension amount arising thereby from the date of retirement of the respondent till it is actually revised and paid within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, if not so revised and paid by now. The Panchayat shall continue to pay to the respondent further amounts of pension as duly revised.
9. It is clarified that the respondent will not be entitled to arrears of difference of salary for the intervening period till the date of his retirement. The impugned order of the Tribunal shall be implemented with above qualification.
10. Rule is discharged subject to above clarification, observations and directions. No order as to costs.
(N.V.
ANJARIA, J.) [SN DEVU PPS] Top