The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to impose a 100% pension cut for unauthorized absence, emphasizing the importance of discipline in public service.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the respondent No.1 imposing 100% cut in pension and order dated 09.03.2010 rejecting the Appeal preferred by the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this petition seeking following relief/s :

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 26-8-2009 and 9-3-2010 marked ANN.A&C to this petition, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the provisions of law;

(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to declare and hold that the petitioner is entitled for payment of his regular pension and gratuity as per Rules on reaching the age of retirement i.e. 30th June, 2005 and be further pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pension and gratuity alongwith 12% interest;

(C) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under :

2.1 The petitioner was working as Chief Officer of Dabhoi Nagar Palika. In this present petition, the petitioner has challenged the arbitrary decision of the respondent no.1 by imposing 100% cut in the pension of the petitioner on reaching the age of superannuation.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that, earlier the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.988 of 10 challenging the said order, however, the said petition was withdrawn with a view to prefer an Appeal as provided under the Rules. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an Appeal and the said Appeal was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 9-3-2010. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent imposing 100% cut in pension and rejecting the Appeal, the petitioner approach this Court.

2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was appointed in services of the respondent initially on 1st April, 1978 as Project Officer, Urban Community Development Project under Dabhoi Nagar Palika and subsequently from 18th October, 1999 the petitioner was selected as Chief Officer. Thus, the petitioner was working as Chief Officer from October. 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner's family was residing in U.S.A. and he wanted to visit the United States of America and therefore, he had made an application for leave before the President of Dabhoi Nagar Palika seeking No Objection for the same. The No Objection Certificate was granted vide letter dated 1st May, 1998.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the District Collector, respondent no.2 herein seeking leave and leave for six months from the period 28-2-2000 to 27-6-2000 was granted and direction was issued vide order dated 24th February, 2000 to handover the charge to the Deputy Mamlatdar. Thereafter, subsequently, vide letter dated 20th June, 2005, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner for remaining on leave unauthorisedly. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner submitted detailed reply on 24th June, 2005.

2.5 Thereafter, the petitioner resumed his duties vide letter dated 29th June, 2005 and on the same day i.e. 29th June, 2005 letter issued by the Deputy Secretary, respondent no.1 allowing the petitioner to resume the duties and the petitioner accordingly resumed his duties and took over the charge from one Mr. J.B. Chaudhry, Mamlatdar.

2.6 It is the say of the petitioner that, the petitioner reached the age superannuation on 30th June, 2005 and accordingly the charge was given to Shri J.B. Chaudhry, Mamlatdar and the petitioner stood retired. Thereafter, the inquiry was conducted and the petitioner submitted the list of documents containing 69 documents before the Inq