Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) The overstay of the officer on foreign deputation be treated as unapproved.
(b) the officer return to his cadre within one month, failing which major penalty proceedings be initiated against him.
(c) the settled implications of treating a period of stay as unauthorised will be applicable from 01.06.2006.

5.1 Accordingly, the State Govt. was requested, vide DoPT's letter dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure-R/4) to comply with the direction of the ACC and inform the replying respondent of the action taken. The State Govt. vide their letter dated 07.01.2008 informed that explanation had been sought from the applicant and the same had not been received. The State Govt., vide their letter dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure-R/-5) had conveyed the directions of ACC to the applicant, wherein he was directed to report back to the cadre for duty within one month as his further extension of foreign deputation from 01.06.2006 to 31.05.2008 has not been approved by the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, Govt. of. India. The State Govt., vide their letter dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure-R/8), again directed him to report back to the cadre for duty within one month, when he had not complied with directions issued vide their letter dated 21.03.2007, failing which departmental action would be initiated accordingly. However, he did not. Thus, he had already been communicated that ACC has not approved his further extension from 01.06.2006 to 31.05.2008 and to report back to the cadre accordingly. Thus, the plea that he was not communicated 2025.10.15 RAVI KANOJIA 16:21:01 +05'30' Item No. 27/C-1 16 OA No. 490/2016 with OA No. 497/2016 regarding his request of further cadre clearance is not maintainable. However, no further extension of foreign deputation from 01.06.2006 to 31.05.2008 was granted and the applicant was very well communicated about it as well as its consequences by the State Govt. on 31.03.2007 & 08.07.2008 respectively (Annexures-R/5 & R/8). Thus, he had wilfully remained absent unauthorizedly for personal gains. However, as regards directions of termination of disciplinary proceedings by respondent No.2 against the applicant, it is submitted that the case of applicant was fit for invoking provisions of rule 7(2) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 and initiating action against him for remaining unauthorisedly absent with effect from 01.06.2006, i.e. after the approved period of foreign deputation upto 31.05.2006. Thus, the replying respondent, vide letter dated 22/23.12.2010 (Annexure-R-10), had, inter alia, requested the State Government to drop the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of AIS (D&A) Rules but to initiate action rule 7 (2) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955, thereby issuing show cause notice seeking explanation within 30 days to the applicant and to furnish their specific recommendations alongwith show cause notices/ Gazette notifications/reply of the applicant for further necessary action. It is further submitted that the applicant herein was granted cadre clearance for taking up foreign assignment with South Centre Geneva under United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for a period of two years beginning from January 2001 and his period of deputation was extended from time to time and final extension was upto 31.05.2006. Thereafter no further extension was granted as ACC had not approved his extension beyond 31.05.2006.

5.2 Accordingly, State Government, vide their letter dated 21.03.2007 (Annexure-R/5), communicated the directions of ACC to the applicant and directed him to report to the cadre for duty in compliance. The State Govt. again directed the applicant on 08.07.2008 (Annexure-R/8) to report back to the cadre for duty otherwise disciplinary action would be taken as the period of his foreign deputation as approved had already expired on 31.05.2oo6 2025.10.15 RAVI KANOJIA 16:21:01 +05'30' Item No. 27/C-1 17 OA No. 490/2016 with OA No. 497/2016 and he had not reported back in pursuance of the directions conveyed by their letter dated 21.03.2007. However, he did not report back. As the case of applicant was fit for invoking provisions of rule 7(2) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 for being unauthorisedly absent after approved period of foreign deputation, the replying respondent, vide letter dated 22/23.12.2010 (Annexure-R/10), had, inter alia, requested the State Govt. to drop the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8 of AIS (D&A) Rules but to initiate action rule 7(2) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955, thereby issuing show cause notice seeking explanation within 30 days to the applicant and to furnish their specific recommendations along with show cause notices/Gazette notifications/reply of the applicant for further necessary action. Rule 7(2) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 (Annexure- R/11) reads as follows:-

5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, the State Govt. had issued show cause notices on 12.10.2011, 20.12.2011 and 19.03.2013 (Annexures-R/12, R/13 & R/14) to the applicant to report for duty immediately under Rule 7 (2)(c) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955. Again, he was directed on 22.08.2014 (Annexure-R/15), thereby giving him final opportunity under aforesaid rule, to submit his explanation by 25.09.2014, failing which his case would be 2025.10.15 RAVI KANOJIA 16:21:01 +05'30' Item No. 27/C-1 18 OA No. 490/2016 with OA No. 497/2016 referred to the Central Government for final decision. This was also published in the State Gazette dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure-R/16). After considering his explanation dated 22.09.2014, the State Govt. had referred his case to the replying respondent for taking appropriate decision regarding deemed resignation, vide their letter dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure-R-18). Upto August, 2015, his unauthorized absence was about 9 years & 01 month approximately. Thus, after following the due procedure, the administrative action of making him deemed to have resigned from service w.e.f. 01.06.2006 under Rule 7(2)(c) of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 was taken and a notification dated 27.08.2015 was issued to that effect (Annexure- R/19).

(ii) Whether subsequent proceedings under Rule 7 (2) (c) of the AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955 are invalid? and

(iii) Whether any procedural or substantive infirmity vitiates the impugned order?

12. So far as issue No. 1 above i.e., Whether the voluntary retirement of the applicant took effect automatically on expiry of 90 days from 15.09.2010 is concerned, we observe that the applicant's main plea is that Rule 16(2) of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 does not require formal acceptance, and that in the absence of rejection within the prescribed period, voluntary retirement becomes effective automatically. Heavy reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, (1977) 4 SCC 441; B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 2 SCC 202; Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76; State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293; and Union of India v. Arun Mishra, W.P.(C) 7917/2020 rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.