Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Si Rajinder Singh vs Union Of India on 6 April, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No. 159/2010 New Delhi this the 6th day of April, 2010. Honble Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) SI Rajinder Singh, S/o Late Shri Ran Singh, age 54 years, R/o H. No. 199, Village Tilangi Pur, Kotla, PO Najafgarh, Delhi-110043. Applicant (By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan ) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Secretary (Establishment) Establishment, DOP&T, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Government of NCTD through The Joint Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCTD, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 5. The Joint Commissioner of Police, Establishment Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 6. Shri Virender Singh (the then Principal PTC, Jharoda Kalan), Addl. Commissioner of Police, South East, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I. P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. 7. The Principal, Police Training College, Jaroda Kalan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Ms. Renu George ) O R D E R Mr. L.K. Joshi, Vice Chairman (A) :
This is a case in which the Applicant is basing his relief on facts, which seem to be stranger than fiction. The Applicant made an application for voluntary retirement forthwith on grounds of personal problems on 18.04.2007. His wish was granted and his voluntary retirement was sanctioned on 18.04.2007 (Annex A-1). On 24.05.2007 the Applicant made a representation for withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement, which was rejected by order dated 18.07.2007 (Annex A-2). The Applicant sent an e-mail on 26.11.2009 for relaxation of rules under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for reinstating him in service. This was rejected by order dated 8.12.2009 (Annex A-3). The orders in the annexes A-1 to A-3 have been challenged in this OA.
2. The Applicant joined Delhi Police as Head Constable (Ministerial) on 2.06.1976. He was promoted to the rank of ASI in 1986 and then to the rank of SI on1.03.1998. On 31.07.2006, the Applicant was posted to the Police Training College (PTC), Jharoda Kalan.
3. Some strange events started unfolding after the Applicants posting to PTC. The averments of the Applicant in paragraph 4.4 to 4.6 are reproduced below:
4.4.That Mr. Virender Singh, the then Addl. Commissioner of Police (Principal, PTC, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi) told the applicant that as his salary has not been drawn to him regularly and as a result of this he is facing financial crunch, so the applicant was directed to pursue the said matter and do the needful as expediently as possible.
4.5. That Mr. Virender Singh, the Addl. CP/Trg used to ask the applicant almost regularly about the progress of his salary problem and every time told the applicant that he is facing financial crunch. The Addl. Comm. of Police also gave his ATM Card to the applicant on 01.04.2007 and also told the PIN code Number (i.e. 0764) so as to check the balance in the said account. On 05.04.2007, the applicant tried to hand over the ATM card along with balance enquiry statement showing Rs.21000/-, but the officer did not accept it and told the applicant to keep it him (sic) for the reason best known to the said officer. As the Addl. Comm. was regularly inquiring about issue of his salary, the applicant came to the conclusion that the Addl. Commissioner (Mr. Virender Singh) is asking from some financial help therefore in order to help the senior officer, the applicant deposited Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on 13.04.2007 and thereafter gave the ATM card along with the receipt of balance amount amounting to Rs.41000/- to the Mr. Virender Singh, the Addl. Comm. of Police (Principal, PTC, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi) and he was pleased to accept the same. Thereafter, it appears that the acceptance of Rs.20,000/-by the Addl. Commissioner of Police came to the notice of other high rank officers of Delhi Police. To hush up the matter and to show his image as clean, the officer on 17.04.2007 asked the applicant to submit his resignation immediately and assured him that as soon as the dust settle down he will again be reinstated in service. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant resigned from service as he was forced to do so by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Shri Virender Singh.
4.6. That the applicant was upset when came back home on 17.04.2007, the family members of the applicant after hearing about the said matter told him to visit the house of Principal (PTC) i.e. Addl. Comm. of Police. The applicant alongwith his wife and son went to Commissioner of Police assured the applicant that he will find some other way out and within a week he will reinstate the applicant in service. On 18.04.2007, the applicant went to the office where he was assured that if he will make a request for voluntary retirement with immediate effect then he will be reinstated immediately. The applicant as desired by the Addl. Comm. of Police submitted his request voluntary retirement forthwith, it is pertinent to mention that applicant was assured that he will be reinstated within a week and it was done so hurriedly that the copy of the said letter was even not been retained by the applicant. The applicant under undue influence and on assurances has to submit his voluntary retirement on the ground of his ill health and on the ground of domestic problems. It is pertinent to mention herein that on the very same day the voluntary retirement of the applicant was accepted by the Mr. Virender Singh. The Addl. Commissioner of Police (Principal, PTC, Jharoda Kalan, Delhi). It is also not out of place to mention that vigilance clearance of the applicant was done within two hours. It is submitted usually in normal course for getting vigilance clearance and integrity certificate it almost take two months, this clearly proves that the matter was hushed up and the applicant letter for voluntary retirement was not voluntary. The Applicant has averred that the said Additional Commissioner assured him that the latter would accept the Applicants request for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. To the utter consternation of the Applicant his request dated 24.05.2007 was turned down.
4. The learned counsel for the Applicant has fervently pleaded that the Applicant had made specific allegations of malafide against the sixth Respondent, i.e. Sh.Virender Singh, then Principal, PTC, Jharoda Kalan, in the OA as well as in his representation to the Commissioner of Police in his representation of September 2007 (Annex A-6) and these cannot be ignored as cock and bull story. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in D.D.Suri Vs. A.K.Barren and others, AIR 1971 SC 175 and Indian Railway Construction Co Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 to buttress the argument that the Courts must not dismiss a petition without considering the plea of malafide. It is contended that the facts, as revealed by the Applicant, would show that the application for voluntary retirement was extracted from him by the sixth Respondent to save himself from a potentially damaging situation. He would contend on the strength of Ajay Kumar (supra) that malafide in the sense of improper motive should not always be established only by direct evidence. It is strenuously urged that the malafide intention of the sixth Respondent would be evident from the unusual haste with which his application was processed, all formalities including vigilance clearance were obtained within two hours. It is further contended that the part of the last sentence in the application has been somehow squeezed in and it was clearly not originally written. The last sentence reads thus:
I will not forget the kind act for the sake my family & same may be accepted forthwith. It is argued that the clause & same may be accepted forthwith was not originally written by the Applicant and he was compelled to write it by the sixth Respondent.
5. It is further contended that the Respondents could not have accepted the notice before the lapse of three months from the date of notice, as the Applicant has not made any request for waiving the period by giving reasons for the same. The Applicant could have withdrawn the notice within three months of the notice. Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India and Another, 1987 (Supp.) SCC 228 in support of this contention has been relief upon. The Applicant had given an application in writing, withdrawing the request for voluntary retirement within three months of the notice. Relying on K.L.E Society V. Dr. R.R. Patil & Anr., JT 2002 (4) SC 411, the learned counsel would contend that retirement before the prescribed date would amount to removal from service. It is further argued that the Respondents have failed to appreciate the true purport of Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
6. The impugned order is further termed to be bad in law because the competent authority failed to record in the order that the Applicant would not apply for commutation of a part of his pension, as he was required to do under Rule 58 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
7. Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is extracted below:
48. Retirement on completion of 30 years qualifying service At any time after a Government servant has completed thirty years qualifying service-
he may retire from service, or he may be required by the Appointing Authority to retire in the public interest and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension:
Provided that-
(a) a Government servant shall give a notice in writing to the Appointing Authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire; and
(b) the Appointing Authority may also give a notice in writing to a Government servant at least three months before the date on which he is required to retire in the public interest or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice;
Provided further that where the Government servant giving notice under Clause (a) of the preceding proviso is under suspension, it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to such Government servant to retire under this rule:
Provided further that the provisions of Clause (a) of this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is-
(i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes,
(ii) posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments.
(iii) on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.
(1-A) (a) A Government servant referred to in Clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefor.
(b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a), the Appointing Authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.
(2) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement.
(3) For the purpose of this rule, the expression Appointing Authority shall mean the authority which is competent to make appointments to the service or post from which the Government servant retires.
Sub-Rule 1 (a) of Rule 48 provides that the Government servant may retire after completing thirty years of qualifying service. Proviso (a) to Sub-Rule 1 provides for a notice in writing at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Under clause (a) of Sub-Rule 1-A, the Government servant may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than three months by giving reasons for the same.
8. We propose to examine the application for voluntary retirement on the basis of the above criteria. The application for voluntary retirement has been reproduced below:
To The Principal P.T.C. J.K. Delhi (Through Proper Channel) Subject :- Notice for voluntary Retirement.
Honble Sir, My humble submission is that I am suffering from a chronic disease and is not able to serve more. My ill health do not allow me to perform duties efficiently. Further I have some domestic problems due to which it is not possible for me to serve more.
It is, therefore, requested that I may be given voluntary retirement from service. I will not forget this kind act for the sake my family & same may be accepted forthwith.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully Sd/-
Rajinder Singh S.I. No.D-2 (Min.) Office of P/PTC JK Delhi Dt.18-4-07.
The Applicant has written unambiguously in the application that his request may be accepted forthwith. He has given reasons of ill health and domestic problems. This in our considered view, meets the requirement of the clause (a) of Sub-Rule 1-A. The Appointing Authority is required to consider the request for curtailment of the period of notice and he may relax the period if he is satisfied that no administrative inconvenience is caused. The Rule does not provide that the Appointing Authority has to record the reasons in writing. Merely his satisfaction has to be there to the effect that no administrative inconvenience would be caused due to relaxation of the Rule of three months notice. Now the question is that whether the failure to record the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months, would render the order non-est. In our considered opinion it would not be so. The conditions for curtailment of notice period have been satisfied, as discussed above. A request for curtailment of the period has been made. If it is accepted, it is assumed that there has been consideration of there being administrative inconvenience. Only these conditions have to be satisfied for accepting the voluntary retirement before the prescribed period of three months. These are the conditions precedent. Failure to mention that the Government servant would not apply for commutation of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months, is a mere technical lapse and is curable. This would not vitiate the order by which voluntary retirement has been accepted.
9. The issue has been raised that when allegations of malafide are made, the case should not be dismissed at the threshold. D.D Suri (supra) has been cited in support of the above contention. D.D.Suri, the appellant, was an officer of the Orissa Cadre of IAS of 1950 batch. In 1952, he had issued a search warrant against some of the top leaders of Orissa on an application filed by the CBI. As a result, the appellant incurred the hostility of powers that be in Orissa. The appellant then remained on deputation to Government of India from1952 to 1965. He returned to Government of Orissa in 1966. In 1967, the appellant made a report on Transport Department, in which adverse comments about another IAS Officer, Ramanathan, were made. In August 1967, the Chief Secretary, with the approval of the Chief Minister, constituted a Committee to review the work of the appellant. Ramanathan was one of the members of the committee. The appellant represented against Ramanathan being a member of the committee. In November 1967, a search of the appellants house was conducted on a warrant issued by the Additional District Magistrate for alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was placed under suspension by the orders of the Chief Secretary. He was not allowed to leave Cuttack without the Chief Secretarys permission. The appellant in his writ petition before the High Court made serious allegation against the Director of Vigilance and the Chief Secretary. It was alleged that the Director of Vigilance and the Chief Secretary placed policemen in plain clothes to watch his movements and he was subjected to a lot of harassment and humiliation. His mail was tampered with. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition just by recording the word dismissed in limine. In these circumstances the Honourable Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to call upon the respondents to reply to the allegations and consider whether the allegations have been proved. These directions are in the specific circumstances of the case. We have to consider whether it would apply to the facts of the instant case. The Applicants case is that the Principal of PTC, Sh. Virender Singh, had been giving clear hints to the Applicant to replenish the latters account in the bank. It is his case that taking the cue he put Rs.20000/-in the account of Sh.Virender Singh. This fact got out and caused embarrassment to the sixth Respondent. This is supposed to be the reason why the sixth Respondent wanted to get rid of him and compelled him to give the notice for voluntary retirement. He compelled him to specifically write in the notice that it be accepted forthwith. This is supposed to be clear from the fact that the relevant sentence has somehow been squeezed in. It is in this backdrop we have to consider the averment of the Applicant that the action of the sixth Respondent has been malafide. We are not commenting on the narration of events and not dismissing that as cock and bull story, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Applicant in his written submissions, given with our permission. What happened afterwards defies common sense. Why was the Applicant in such vulnerable position as to succumb to pressure to write his notice for voluntary retirement? If the sixth Respondent had initiated action against the Applicant, e.g., placing him under suspension, initiating departmental inquiry against him etcetera, it could be attributed to malafide on his part. The notice for voluntary retirement has been written by the Applicant in his handwriting. He has not signed on a typed copy proffered by someone else. It is an act of his own volition. It is also not clear as to why just on the asking of the sixth Respondent the Applicant wrote his notice of voluntary retirement. It is not clear as to how he could be coerced to do so. The Applicant requested for grant of voluntary retirement `forthwith. He cannot turn round later to say that the expedition with which it was approved would point to malafide intentions of the sixth Respondent. It would require extensive evidence to be recorded to come to the conclusion that the Applicant was coerced or cajoled to take the above course of action, which is beyond the purview of judicial review. In our considered opinion circumstances do not lead to reasonable and inescapable inference in regard to malafide action of the sixth Respondent. The ratio of the judgements in D.D. Suri (supra) and Ajay Kumar (supra) would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. D.R. Patil (supra) also has no relevance to this case. In this case, the respondent gave a notice for voluntary retirement on 2.12.1994 requesting to accord necessary permission to take voluntary retirement at the earliest. The appellant did not take any action. On 5.07.1995, he submitted second letter of voluntary retirement. In this letter also, the plea for accepting the voluntary retirement at the earliest was made. On 14.07.1995, the Board of Life Members recommended the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. On 19.07.1995, the respondent wrote to the Board of Management to keep his request dated 5.07.1995 in abeyance. The Board did not consider it on the ground that the request dated 19.07.1995 did not establish that there has been a material change in circumstances. It was resolved to accept the recommendation of the Board of Life Members. It was communicated to the respondent on 20.07.1995. The observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraphs 15 to 18 are reproduced below:
15. As noticed above, rule 50(5) provides for a minimum period of notice unless explicitly curtailed under clauses (h) of rule 50(5). The respondent had not specified an intended date of retirement in the first notice. He had asked for 'permission to take voluntary retirement at the earliest' but there was no plea for curtailing the notice period. Therefore in the context of rule 50 (h), the "earliest" would have been after three months viz., 2nd March. The importance of the notice period lies in the fact that the retirement if accepted would be effective on the expiry of that period. However, no action was taken by the appellant to retire the respondent no. 1 then. On the other hand, after the notice period expired, the respondent no. 1 was not only continued in service but vested with additional obligations. The respondent no. 1 did not refuse nor did he protest this. He continued in service well after the expiry of the first notice period. Both the appellant and the respondent no. 1 by their conduct clearly treated the first notice as infructuous and inoperative. Had the appellant treated the first notice of retirement as the operative one, when the impugned order of acceptance was issued, the respondent no.1 would have been treated as retired with effect from the expiry of the first notice period.
16. When the respondent no. 1 submitted the second notice on 5.7.1995, no reference was made to the earlier notice dated 2.12.94. Besides there could not have been two applications for voluntary retirement. By accepting the second application on 5.7.95 the first application must in any event be treated as having been superseded. The respondent no.1's letter dated 5.7.1995 was in fact a fresh application for voluntary retirement. Here too the respondent no. 1 did not specify the intended date of retirement. He only requested that he may be permitted to take retirement 'at the earliest'. The non specification of a date coupled with the fact that no request was made for curtailment of the notice period, meant that the date of his voluntary retirement could only be on or after 5.10.1995. During this period, the respondent no. 1 sent the letter dated 19.7.1995 requesting that the notice of voluntary retirement dated 5.7.1995 be kept in abeyance. This was not a letter for withdrawing the notice. It was a request that the notice may be kept in abeyance in the sense not considered immediately thus postponing the intended date of retirement. Assuming that the letter dated 19.7.1995 was a notice of withdrawal and that the appellant was right in discarding it, nevertheless the appellant was bound to allow the notice period of three months calculated from 5.7.1995 to expire before issuing an order accepting the notice. Admittedly the appellant did not do that. They issued the impugned order within 15 days.
17. The appellant purported to treat the notice dated 5.7.1995 as a continuation of the first notice dated 2.12.1994 for the purpose of calculating the notice period. They could not have done that for the reasons stated earlier. The appellant not having waited for three months from 5.7.1995, the order accepting the respondent no. 1's request for voluntary retirement was premature and amounted to unilateral curtailment of the notice period by the appellant contrary to the scheme and more particularly rule 50 (5) (c) thereof. The impugned order cannot but be held to be bad.
18. There is a further reason for setting aside the impugned order. Under rule 50 (5), as far as the respondent no. 1 was concerned, the appointing authority was the appellant and the approving authority was the state government. The order of acceptance could have been issued by the appellant on 20.7.1995 only after obtaining the "specific prior approval" of the state government under clause (m) and after verification of the respondent no. 1's eligibility in consultation with the accountant general under clause (m). Neither of these preconditions had been fulfilled. The purported approval of the state government was much after the impugned order of acceptance was passed. The verification with the accountant general has not been done at all. The facts in the instant case are distinct. While at the earliest is nebulous in as much as it can not be definite as to how early is `the earliest, `forthwith is definite. In Oxford English Dictionary the meaning of forthwith is given as without delay. While `at the earliest may not convey a definite period of time, `forthwith would mean `here and now. This judgement would also not advance the cause of the Applicant.
11. It had also been urged that the notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time within three months of the prescribed period for the notice. Balram Gupta (supra) was cited in support of the argument. This judgement would have no application in the instant case. First, Balram Gupta had applied for voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, after completion of 20 years of service. The Applicants application for voluntary retirement is under Rule 48 (ibid). The appellant in this case applied for voluntary retirement on 24.12.1980 seeking voluntary retirement from 31.03.1981. His `notice period was, as per his request, to be counted from 1.01.1981. The appellant was allowed to retire prospectively by an order dated 20.01.1981, with effect from 31.03.1981. The appellant withdrew his notice for retirement by his letter dated 31.01.1981. He was, however, relieved by an order dated 31.03.1981. The relieving order also mentioned that his request dated 31.01.1981 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement was considered and not found acceptable. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by observing that the rules enabled the Government servant to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement only with the approval of the Government. Such approval had not been given by the Government. According to the High Court, the rule had been complied with. The Honourable Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that approval was not the ipse dixit of the approving authority. It was held that the reason given for withdrawal of the letter of retirement was that he had been prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter and that it was entirely reasonable. The withdrawal was in quick succession to the notice for voluntary retirement and it could not be held that administrative set up was affected. There is no doubt about the fact that an employee is entitled to withdraw his application for retirement within the intended date of retirement. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads thus:
(2) A government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary intimation to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of his retirement. However, once the employee has retired, he has severed all relations with the employer. He cannot withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement after he has retired. The Applicant retired on 18.04.2007. His application for withdrawal of notice was made on 24.05.2007, by which time he was not an employee of the Delhi Police.
12. Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is extracted below:
88. Power to relax Where any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner:
Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The Applicants application for seeking relaxation in rules was forwarded on 13.08.2008 by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Ministry of Home Affairs and, inter alia, reads thus: According to Rule 48 (2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of retirement. However, the same can be relaxed by the Government in the light of Rule 88 of the said Rules.
In view of the rule-position as above, it is requested that concurrence of the Competent Authority under Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, to allow Sh. Rajender Singh to rejoin his services as S.I. (Min) in Delhi Police, may be obtained and conveyed to this Govt. at the earliest. The Government of NCT of Delhi again wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs, replying to the latters query, on 23.12.2008. The letter is reproduced below To The Director (Delhi), Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India North Block, New Delhi.
Subject:- Representation made by EX. SI (Min) Rajender Singh, No. D/2 of Delhi Police for reinstating him in service after taking voluntary retirement.
Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.14011/110/08-UTP, dated 19.11.2008, on the above cited subject. It has been informed by Delhi Police vide its letter No.26069/Estt(III)PHQ, dated 15.12.2008 that Exe. SI (Min) Rajender Singh No.D/2, proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 18.4.2007, after proceeding on voluntary retirement he submitted an application on 24.5.2007 to withdraw his previous application for voluntary retirement. Whereas as per provision contained in Rule 48 (2) of CCS (Pension) Rules-1972, the request for withdrawal shall be within the intended date of retirement hence the request of SI (Retd.) Rajender Singh, No. D/2 could not be acceded to.
As regards views of this Govt. on this case, it is again reiterated that the request of Sh. Rajender Singh may be considered for obtaining the approval of the Competent Authority under Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules-1972, to allow him to rejoin his services as SI (Min) in Delhi Police, as conveyed vide this officer letter of even number dated 07.11.08. The reply of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 19.08.2009 is quoted below:
To Shri Ishwar Singh Addl. DCP (Estt.) PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
Sub:- Representation made by Ex. SI (Min).) Rejender Singh, No.D/2 of Delhi Police for reinstating him in service after taking voluntary retirement.
----------
Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.6870/Estt.(III)PHQ dated the 22nd May 2009 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter was examined in this Ministry in consultation with DOP&T and Deptt. Of Pension & Pensioners Welfare. DOP&T to whom the case was last referred has opined that no case has been made out to state that the operation of the Rule has caused undue hardship to the individual and therefore have not recommended any relaxation under Rule 88 of Pension Rules.
2. In the meantime, a representation dated 31-07-2009 from Ex. SI (Min.) Rajender Singh, No.D/2 of Delhi Police has been received in this Ministry, a copy of which is enclosed. You are requested to examine the same in the light of observations of DOP&T and forward it to the Ministry, alongwith full justification for relaxing Rule 48 (2) of CCS (Pension Rule) under Rule 88, for taking up further with DOP&T. The request was finally rejected by the Commissioner of Police, the fourth Respondent by observing thus:
It is informed that your case regarding relaxation of Rule-88, of CCS Pension Rule-1972, reinstating in service after voluntary retirement have not been agreed to by the competent authority. With reference to MHAs letter No.14011/110/08-UTP, dated 19-8-2009, your case was again examined in the Hdqrs. and no ground was found to justify relaxation of Rule-48(2) of CCS (Pension Rule) under Rule-88, for taking up further with DOP&T. In the matter of relaxation of a rule, it would be the discretion of the competent authority to grant it or reject it. Unless the decision is ex facie perverse and illegal, the Tribunal cannot interfere with it. No arguments have been advanced to show any perversity in the order rejecting the Applicants plea for relaxation of Rule 48 under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. We had given notice to the Respondents only to the limited extent that they would produce the original application for voluntary retirement given by the Applicant. The Respondents had filed an affidavit annexing a copy of the letter seeking voluntary retirement. The original letter was also produced before us for our perusal.
13. The Applicant is largely to blame for the misfortune, which has befallen him. As Omar Khayyam poignantly wrote:
The Moving Finger writes and having writ Moves on; Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line Nor all thy tears wash out of word of it.
14. The OA is dismissed at the threshold as we find it to be lacking in merit.
( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma ) ( L.K. Joshi ) Member (J) Vice Chairman (A) /dkm/