Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
P.N.V.S.V.Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 12-16-94
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (TEMPORARY SERVICE) RULES, 1965 - RULE 5(1) - CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RULES, 1955 - RULE 16(D) - CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTION 74 - SECTION 23 - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1964 - RULE 3(1)(III) - CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (MEDICAL OFFICERS CADRE) RULES, 1976 - Petitioners, a doctor couple, were appointed as General Duty Officers Grade-II (Dy. Superintendent of Police/Company Commander) on a temporary basis by the respondents. They were governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioners resigned from their posts by serving a one-month notice, as per Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. However, the respondents demanded three months' pay and allowances from the petitioners, as per the terms of their appointment, which stated that they were required to serve for a minimum period of three years. The petitioners challenged the demand and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against them for violating Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to resign by serving one month's notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and that the respondents were not justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against them. However, the Court also held that the petitioners were liable to refund three months' pay and allowances to the respondents for violating the terms of their appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a doctor couple, were appointed as General Duty Officers Grade-II (Dy. Superintendent of Police/Company Commander) on a temporary basis by the respondents. They were governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The petitioners resigned from their posts by serving a one-month notice, as per Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. However, the respondents demanded three months' pay and allowances from the petitioners, as per the terms of their appointment, which stated that they were required to serve for a minimum period of three years. The petitioners challenged the demand and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against them for violating Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to resign by serving one month's notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and that the respondents were not justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against them. However, the Court also held that the petitioners were liable to refund three months' pay and allowances to the respondents for violating the terms of their appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to resign by serving one month's notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners for violating Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964? 3. Whether the petitioners were liable to refund three months' pay and allowances to the respondents for violating the terms of their appointment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to resign by serving one month's notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, because: - The petitioners were governed by the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which allowed them to terminate their services by giving one month's notice. - The terms of the petitioners' appointment did not override the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. - The respondents were not justified in insisting that the petitioners serve for a minimum period of three years, as this was not a condition precedent to resignation under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 2. The Court held that the respondents were not justified in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners for violating Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, because: - The petitioners had already resigned from their posts and were no longer subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the respondents. - The alleged misconduct of the petitioners did not occur during their tenure of service. 3. The Court held that the petitioners were liable to refund three months' pay and allowances to the respondents for violating the terms of their appointment, because: - The petitioners had agreed to serve for a minimum period of three years, and they had breached this agreement by resigning before the end of that period. - The respondents were entitled to recover the three months' pay and allowances as compensation for the petitioners' breach of contract.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned proceedings of the respondents and declared that the respondents shall not take any such proposed action against the petitioners under the proceedings. It further declared that the petitioners shall be liable to refund three months' pay and allowances to the respondents for committing the breach of stipulation No. 5(1) of the order of appointment issued by the respondents.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact. Respondents are also common and the petitioners are the Doctor couple. Thus the two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common judgment. Uncontrovertedly the facts in the two writ petitions sublime to these :
( 2 ) DR. P. N. V. S. V. Prasad and Dr. Smt. Sandhya Rani are husband and wife in both the writ petitions They were appointed as General duty Officers Grade-11 (Dy. Superintendent of police/company Commander) on temporary basis by respondents 2 and 3, in their proceedings no. R. II-1/88-Estt-I dated nil-12-1989 that was subject to certain stipulations contained in the order of appointment. They reported to duty at durgapur on 10-2-1990. They discharged their duties in that capacity till 4-10-1990 having been sent their letters of resignation dated 5-9-1990, with one month s notice. . . . Therein the petitioners requested respondent no. 2 to accept their resignation and relieve them from their assignment at the earliest. These letters were sought to be treated as notice under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 with effect from 5-9-1990. Respondent No. 2 replied the petitioners in D. V. 3/90-Estt-8 dated 22nd September, 1991 calling upon them to deposit three months pay and allowances amounting to Rs. 11,652/- each as per the bond so that the termination notices can be accepted. The petitioners replied these letters on 19-9-1991 pleading that since they have resigned, by serving a notice of termination as required under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules supra, they were not liable to pay the amount to the respondents as demanded. But respondent no. 3 in the same proceedings dated 21-12-1991, however, justified the demand of payment and insisted the payment of Rs. 11,652/- by each of them since they have failed to fulfil the stipulation to serve for a period of three years as per the terms of the appointment. This was followed by a show-cause-notice in proceedings no. O. II-2643/90-Estt dated 23-1-1992 as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for violating Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct Rules) 1964. That was followed by the memorandum of charges in the proceedings No. F. 4/14/92- estt (C. R;p. F.) dated 27-10-1992 alleging that they resigned in their letters dated 5-9-1990 contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment and left the campus of C. R. P. F. on 4-10-1990 without the permission and authority of the competent authority and without the resignation having been accepted by the authority and when called upon to report to duty, they failed to report to duty and thus they committed misconduct which was not becoming of a government servant violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It accompanied the statement of imputations in annexure-2. This was followed by another proceedings No. D. IX-7/92-Estt. I dated 14-1-1994 stating that a departmental enquiry had been conducted against the petitioners and the report of enquiry was annexed to the letter and that the disciplinary authority may take suitable decision after considering the report and in the meanwhile they could make any representation or submission in writing within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said letters. To this the petitioners issued their replies dated 26-11-1992 through an Advocate justifying their resignation and denying their liability under the same and challenging the proposed action of respondents 2 and 3. It is at this stage, the petitioners filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned proceedings dated 14-1-1994 on the ground that it was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and sought for a writ of certiorary to quash them. Further the petitioners sought for a direction to respondents to pay th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
