Mere Implication Of Name In Vigilance Case Cannot Prevent Acceptance Of Application For Voluntary Retirement: Orissa High Court

A single bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Govind Nag vs State of Orissa & Ors has held that mere implication of the name of the officer in a vigilance case could not stand in way of accepting an application for voluntary retirement of the officer. Background Facts Govind Nag (Petitioner) was appointed as Inspector of Cooperative Society in 1996. During the course of employment of the Petitioner, no disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings were initiated against him. The Petitioner was suffering from Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and his son was suffering from mental ailments. Due to the same the Petitioner decided to leave the government service and submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 14.12.2023. Although the aforesaid application was accepted by the competent authority, no decision with regard to the same was taken. Thus, the writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner to pray for issuing of directions to the Respondents to accept the application for voluntary retirement and release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner. It was contended by the Petitioner that Rule 42(2) of the Odisha Civil Service Pension Rules, 1992 (Odisha Pension Rules) provides that if any government employee tenders their application for voluntary retirement, the same has to be either accepted or rejected within 3 months and if no decision is taken regarding the application within 3 months, the application will be deemed to have been accepted. It was thus contended that since the application of the Petitioner was pending for more than 3 months, his application shall be deemed to be accepted by the Respondent. On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner had been implicated in Vigilance Case which was still pending and the Petitioner was on bail in pursuance to an order of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Respondent Authority was not bound to accept the application of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner during the pendency of the Vigilance Case. With respect to the contentions regarding the Vigilance Case, it was contended by the Petitioner that no chargesheet had been filed in the Vigilance Case and under the Odisha Pension Rules, no proceeding can be construed to be pending against the Petitioner unless a chargesheet is filed. Findings of the Court The court observed that under proviso of Rule 42(2) of the Odisha Pension Rules, it is clearly laid down that the Petitioner is required to give a notice to the Appointing Authority of minimum 3 months to reject the application of Voluntary Retirement. If no communication is made with respect to rejection of the said application, the applciation is deemed to be accepted by the appointing authority. The court also observed that that the case of the Petitioner satisfies the requirement under Proviso of Rule 42(2) of the Odisha Pension Rules. The court further observed that Rule 7(2) of the Odisha Pension Rules provides that judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted from the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The court placed reliance on the case of State of Odisha and Ors. v. Sushanta Chandra Sahoo and Ors in which the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had held that when no cognizance was taken by the magistrate, it cannot be presumed that any proceeding was pending. The court held that since no charge sheet had been filed and no cognizance was taken by the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the subject matter of dispute of the Petitioner, no judicial proceeding can be deemed to be pending against the Petitioner. The court observed that mere implication of the Petitioner's name in the vigilance case could not stand in the way of accepting the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement. With the aforesaid observations, the court disposed of the writ petition Case No.- WP(C) No.9460 of 2024 Case Name- Govind Nag vs State of Orissa & Ors Counsel for the Petitioner- Adv. - Jaminikanta Das Counsel for Respondents- Adv. – S.Das, AGA Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Implication Of Name In Vigilance Case Cannot Prevent Acceptance Of Application For Voluntary Retirement: Orissa High Court

Udai Yashvir Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mere Implication Of Name In Vigilance Case Cannot Prevent Acceptance Of Application For Voluntary Retirement: Orissa High Court

Udai Yashvir Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers