Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Kodarbhai Veerabhai Katara vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 11 March, 2014

Author: C.L.Soni

Bench: C.L. Soni

        C/SCA/8606/2013                                   JUDGMENT



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8606 of 2013



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

================================================================

1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
    the judgment ?

2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
    judgment ?

4   Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
    to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
    order made thereunder ?

5   Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

================================================================
              KODARBHAI VEERABHAI KATARA....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. RONAK RAVAL, LD. AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
================================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI

                           Date : 11/03/2014


                           ORAL JUDGMENT

C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT

1. The   petitioner,   who   retired   as   Deputy  Superintendent   of   Police   (Dy.S.P.)   on   30.06.2012   on  reaching   the   age   of   superannuation,   has   filed   this  petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of  India   to   hold   the   action   of   the   respondents   in  withholding   his   pension   and   gratuity   as   illegal   and  arbitrary and to direct the respondents to release him  regular   pension   and   gratuity.     The   petitioner   has  averred that in the order dated 30.06.2012, permitting  him to retire, it is stated that 'C' summary proposal  in respect of criminal complaint under Section 498(A)  and 114 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Amreli  City   Police   Station   being   C.R.No.I­36   of   2011   is  pending   in   the   Court   and   that   inquiry   against   the  petitioner for not accepting the investigation of one  criminal complaint being C.R.No.I­56/2001 is going on.

2. It   is   the   case   of   the   petitioner   that   by   the  aforesaid   order,   the   petitioner   was   retired   on   the  condition that the above said case and inquiry shall  continue against the petitioner.  

3. The   petitioner   has   further   averred   that   in   the  complaint under Section 498(A) filed by one Rekhaben  Page 2 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT against   accused   Naranbhai   Rathva   alleged   to   be   her  husband, the petitioner is arraigned as accused as he  did not make an investigation as regards allegation of  harassment   to   complainant.     The   petitioner   is  otherwise   not   concerned   with   the   offenses   under  Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.   As regards  the   inquiry  of  not   accepting   the     investigation  for  C.R.No.I­56 of 2011, the petitioner has averred that  the   petitioner   had   taken   over   the   investigation   on  05.11.2011   and   all   steps   necessary,   were   taken   for  such investigation.   The petitioner has contended in  the petition that as on the date of retirement of the  petitioner, since no departmental proceedings nor any  judicial   proceedings   was   pending   against   the  petitioner, the respondents were not justified in not  releasing pension and gratuity of the petitioner.

4. No affidavit in reply to oppose the petition is  filed.  

5. Learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the petitioner  submitted that as regards the complaint under Section  498(A) lodged by one Rekhaben, the general allegations  are made that the police officers were not cooperating  Page 3 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT in taking action.  However, there is no allegation as  regards giving cruel treatment to the complainant by  the   petitioner.     Mr.Modi   submitted   that   in   fact,   in  respect   of   the   said   complaint,   the   C­Summary   report  was filed, which has been pending.   Therefore, as on  the   date   of   the   retirement   of   the   petitioner,   no  judicial   proceedings   could   be   said   to   be   instituted  and pending.

6. Mr.Modi submitted that as regards the second item  of   not   taking   investigation   by   the   petitioner   in  respect of C.R.No.I­56 of 2011, the petitioner was not  served with any charge­sheet for departmental inquiry  on or before the date of retirement of the petitioner.  Mr.Modi submitted that the petitioner was served with  only show cause notice dated 26.06.2012, calling upon  the petitioner as to why departmental inquiry against  the   petitioner   should   not   be   instituted   for   not  obeying   the   instructions   of   the   concerned   authority  for   taking   up   the   investigation   and   thereby   showing  negligence   towards   the   duty   as   a   police   officer.  Mr.Modi submitted that in fact, much before the above  said show cause notice served to the petitioner, the  petitioner   had   already   investigated   into   the  Page 4 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT allegations   of   the   complaint   being   C.R.No.I­56   of  2011.  Mr.Modi thus, submitted that as on the date of  retirement   of   the   petitioner,   since,   neither   any  departmental proceedings nor any judicial proceedings  was   pending   and   the   respondents   could   not   have  withheld the pension and gratuity of the petitioner.  He thus, urged to allow the petition.  

7. Learned   AGP   Mr.Ronak   Raval   appearing   for   the  respondents submitted that in respect of the offenses  of Section 498(A), no final order on the C­Summary was  passed by the Court till the petitioner retired from  service.     Mr.Raval   submitted   that   in   such  circumstances,   it   could   be   said   that   criminal  proceedings were pending against the petitioner, when  the petitioner was retired.   Mr.Raval submitted that  even   as   regards   the   allegation   of   not   accepting  the  investigation   in   respect   of   the   complaint   being  C.R.No.I­56 of 2011, the petitioner was already served  with   the  show   cause   notice  before   the   retirement   of  the   petitioner   to   hold   the   departmental   inquiry  against   him.     Mr.Raval   submitted   that   when   the  petitioner was retired vide order dated 30.06.2012 at  Annexure:A,  it  was   clearly  stated   in   the   said   order  Page 5 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT that   the   Criminal   complaint   under   Section   498(A)   of  the Indian Penal Code and the inquiry against him as  regards   not   accepting   the   investigation   against   the  complaint being C.R.No.I­56 of 2011 shall continue and  the   petitioner   shall   be   bound   by   the   result   of   the  Criminal   case   and   the   inquiry   initiated   against   him  and on such condition, the petitioner was permitted to  retire.     Mr.Raval   thus,   submitted   that   in   view   of  above   provisions   made   in   the   order   dated   30.06.2012  for   retirement  of  the   petitioner,   it   cannot   be   said  that   the   respondents   were   not   justified   in   not  releasing   the   regular   pension   and   gratuity   of   the  petitioner.     Mr.Raval   submitted   that   the   petitioner  has   already   been   released   provisional   pension   and  therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the  respondents in not releasing the regular pension and  gratuity of the petitioner was in any way arbitrary or  unreasonable.     Mr.Raval   thus,   urged   to   dismiss   the  petition. 

8. Having   heard   learned   advocates   for   the   parties  and having perused the record of the case, it appears  that   in   the   complaint   at   Annexure:F   under   Section  498(A),   504   and   114   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   the  Page 6 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT petitioner is joined as accused No.4 as he and other  police officers were alleged to have not cooperated in  taking action in respect of allegations of cruelty to  the complainant by accused No.1.   It further appears  that   in   connection   with   the   said   complaint,   police  submitted   C­Summary   report   on   the   ground   that   the  complainant had not provided any proof of her marriage  with   the   accused   No.1   and   in   absence   of   any   proof  about the complainant's staying with accused No.1 as  wife, no offense could be said to have been made out.  This report was submitted on 31.01.2012.  Learned AGP  Mr.Raval   pointed   out   that   the   said   report   has   been  pending in the Court.  

9. So far as the second item referred in the order  dated   30.06.2012   at   Annexure:A   permitting   the  petitioner   to   retire,   there   is   no   dispute  about  the  fact   that   the   petitioner   was   served   with   a   notice  dated 26.06.2012 placed at Annexure:C calling upon the  petitioner to explain why departmental inquiry should  not   be   initiated   against   the   petitioner   for   not  obeying   the   instructions   of   the   concerned   authority  for taking on the investigation of the complaint being  C.R.No.I.56   of   2011   and   thereby   showing   negligence  Page 7 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT towards   the   duty   as   a   police   officer.   Though   the  petitioner   has   stated   that   he   had   taken   over   such  investigation   w.e.f.   05.11.2011,   but   even   if   the  conduct   before   05.11.2011   was   to   be   considered   then  also,   as   on   the   date   of   the   retirement   of   the  petitioner,   no   charge­sheet   for   the   allegations  contained in the show cause notice was served to the  petitioner.  

10. For   the   purpose   of   withholding   of   the   pension,  when   departmental   and   judicial   proceedings   to   be  deemed instituted are explained in Sub Rule 5 of Rule  24   of   Gujarat   Civil   Service   (Pension)   Rules,   2002  ('the Rules' for short).   Sub Rule 5 reads as under:­ "(5) For the purpose of this rule

     (a) departmental   proceedings   shall   be  deemed to be instituted on the date on which  the   statement   of   charges   is   issued   to   the   Government   employee   or   pensioner,   or   if   the   Government   employee   has   been   placed   under   suspension from an earlier date, on such date,   and 

     (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed   to be instituted ­

(i) in   case   of   criminal  proceedings,   on   the   date   on   which   the   complaint   or   report   is   made   by   a   police   officer   of   which   the   Magistrate   takes  cognizance, and Page 8 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT

(ii) in   case   of   civil   proceedings,  on   the   date   of   presenting   the   plaint   in   the   court."

11. From   Clause   (a)   of   Sub   Rule   5   of   Rule   24,   it  appears   that   the   departmental   proceedings   could   be  said to be instituted only on the date on which the  statement of the charges is issued to the Government  employee   or   if   the   Government   employee   was   placed  under suspension from the earlier date on such date.  It   is   not   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   the  petitioner was placed under suspension at any point of  time and there is no dispute that the petitioner has  still   not   been   issued   the   statement   of   the   charges  (the charge sheet).   Therefore, the day on which the  petitioner retired, no departmental proceedings could  be  said   to   have   been  instituted   and  pending   against  the   petitioner.     Then   remains   the   question   as   to  whether lodging of FIR (complaint) under Section 498A  of the Indian Penal Code, could be said to be judicial  proceedings   instituted   and   pending   on   or   before   the  date when the petitioner was retired.  

12. From Clause (b) of Sub­rule 5 of Rule 25 of the  Rules, it appears that the judicial proceedings could  be   said   to   be   instituted   in   respect   of   criminal  Page 9 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT proceedings on the date when the complaint or report  by the police officer is made on which the Magistrate  takes   cognizance.   If   there   is   no   complaint   before  learned Magistrate or no report by the police officer  for the FIR (complaint) made to it on which learned  Magistrate   has   taken   cognizance,   it   cannot   be   said  that   the   judicial   proceedings   is   instituted.     Thus,  both the requirements i.e. making of complaint before  the Magistrate or making of report by the police as  well as taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate  on such complaint or the report of the police should  be satisfied before treating any criminal proceedings  judicial   proceedings   instituted.     It   appears   that  there was no direct complaint to the Court of learned  Magistrate, but FIR was lodged by one Rekhaben Vaghela  with Amreli Police Station on 10.02.2011 under Section  468A, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.  In respect of  such   FIR,   police   submitted   its   C­Summary   report   on  31.01.2012.   From page No.30 it appears that on such  report   learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Amreli  passed   order   dated   19.03.2012,   for   taking   the   C­ Summary   on   register   and   issue   notice   to   the  complainant for hearing on 22.05.2012.  As pointed out  Page 10 of 12 C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT by  learned   AGP  Shri   Raval,  the   C­Summary   report  was  pending   at   the  above  said   stage   when   the   petitioner  retired   and   has   continued   to   remain   pending  thereafter.     Thus,   it   cannot   be   said   that   learned  Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint under  Section 498A, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.  It therefore cannot be said that when the petitioner  was retired on 30.06.2012, judicial proceedings were  instituted against the petitioner.  

13. In the case of Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of  Investigation, Delhi and Another, reported in (2012) 2  SCC 188, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed  in para No.16 and 17 as under:

"16. Section   190   of   the   Code   lays   down   the   conditions   which   are   requisite   for   the  initiation of a criminal proceeding. At this   stage the Magistrate is required to exercise   sound judicial discretion and apply his mind   to  the  facts  and  materials  before  him.    In  doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the   opinion of the investigating officer and he  is   competent   to   exercise   his   discretion   irrespective   of   the   views   expressed   by   the   police in its report and may prima facie find   out whether an offence has been made out or   not.

17. The taking of cognizance means the point  in  time  when  a  court  or  a  Magistrate  takes  judicial notice of an offence with a view to   initiating   proceedings   in   respect   of   such  offence which appears to have been committed. 

C/SCA/8606/2013 JUDGMENT At   the   stage   of   taking   of   cognizance   of   offence,   the   court   has   only   to   see   whether   prima facie there are reasons for issuing the   process   and   whether   the   ingredients   of   the   offence are there on record."  

14. In   view   of   the   above,   the   respondents   were   not  justified   in   withholding   the   pension   and   other  retirement   benefits   of   the   petitioner   by   relying   on  the   Rule   24   of   the   Rules.     The   respondents   having  unauthorizedly and illegally withheld the pension and  gratuity of the petitioner, the petition is required  to be allowed.  

15. For   the   reasons   stated   above,   the   petition   is  allowed.  The petitioner is held entitled to pension,  gratuity and other retirement benefits on and from the  date   of   his   retirement   i.e.   from   30.06.2012.     The  respondents   are   therefore   directed   to   release   the  pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits of the  petitioner   within   3   months   from   the   date   of   the  receipt of this order.  Rule made absolute.

(C.L.SONI, J.) ANKIT Page 12 of 12