A government servant, who had already faced disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department, cannot be disqualified from opting for voluntary retirement from service, the Madras High Court has held.
Passing orders on a petition by R. Lakshmi of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Justice D. Hariparanthaman said that Rule 56 (3) (e) of the Fundamental Rules placed restriction for going on voluntary retirement only if disciplinary proceeding was contemplated or pending.
The petitioner, who had put in over 37 years of service, had on April 20 sought permission to go on voluntary retirement which was rejected by the authorities and hence the petition.
The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s increment was stopped for three years with cumulative effect from 2005 and the same was considered her disqualification to opt for voluntary retirement.
The judge said that a person seeking voluntary retirement shall be allowed to retire voluntarily unless there was any disqualification, and quashed a Government Order rejecting her application seeking voluntary retirement.
Further, the court directed officials to relieve her from service by July 31.
Petitioner, who had put in over 37 years of service, had on April 20 sought permission to go on VRS and it was eventually rejected
Passing orders on a petition by R. Lakshmi of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Justice D. Hariparanthaman said that Rule 56 (3) (e) of the Fundamental Rules placed restriction for going on voluntary retirement only if disciplinary proceeding was contemplated or pending.
The petitioner, who had put in over 37 years of service, had on April 20 sought permission to go on voluntary retirement which was rejected by the authorities and hence the petition.
The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner’s increment was stopped for three years with cumulative effect from 2005 and the same was considered her disqualification to opt for voluntary retirement.
The judge said that a person seeking voluntary retirement shall be allowed to retire voluntarily unless there was any disqualification, and quashed a Government Order rejecting her application seeking voluntary retirement.
Further, the court directed officials to relieve her from service by July 31.
Petitioner, who had put in over 37 years of service, had on April 20 sought permission to go on VRS and it was eventually rejected
No comments:
Post a Comment