Justice after 12 years! HC quashes compulsory retirement order of in case of Pardeshi Ram Bhoi


Raipur, May 16
The Chhattisgarh High Court Double Bench, comprising Chief Justice P R Ramachandra Menon and Judge Parth Preetam Sahu, asked Pt Ravishankar Shukla University (PRSU) Raipur to dismiss the compulsory retirement order of 47-year-old Pardeshi Ram Bhoi, presently working as Junior Superintendent at PRSU. The decision of the court came 12 years after the suspension of Bhoi who was made to sit home during this period despite an enquiry done against him gave a clean chit.
The Bench also directed the university to pay the pending salary of 12 years, said advocate Anurag Jha who was counsel for the respondent/petitioner Bhoi. The university will have to pay Rs 40-50 lakh to Bhoi in compliance with the court order.
Earlier, a Single Judge bench allowed the writ petition while setting aside the compulsory retirement and said that the petitioner/respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits including salary from the date of suspension till his rejoining along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
According to the case, the petitioner was appointed as Book Attendant and was promoted to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on January 31, 1991. While working as LDC, he was assigned the work of Examination Department of the appellant University. He was also given the charge of BBA Examination Department. The Petitioner while holding the aforementioned charge had accepted the examination form of BBA of St Vincent Palloti College, further issued admit cards with the seal and stamp of Deputy Registrar of the Examination. The action of accepting the examination form of last students of Palloti College was viewed seriously, because the appellant University issued notice on August 12, 2007 mentioning there in that prior permission before accepting forms of the college.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Bhoi and charge sheet was issued to him on January 3, 2008. An enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer found one out of four charges correct. However, the disciplinary authority considering the enquiry report issued the order on October 16, 2008 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement from services. This led the petitioner to approach High Court.
On which, the appellant University submitted reply to the writ petition. Upon hearing the respective parties, Single Judge quashed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement and held the petitioner to be entitled for all consequential benefits including entire salary from the date of suspension till its rejoining along with interest at the rate of percent per annum.
Neeraj Dubey, counsel for the appellant university submitted that the impugned order passed by the Single Judge is contrary to the evidence available on record. The counsel told the Single Judge bench that the University has paid all the retiral dues to the petitioner after passing of the order of compulsory retirement. Hence respondent peritions is not entitled for the relief. The counsel of the appellant also raised the credibility issue of petitioner.
As the case reached the Double Bench of the High Court, Chief Justice Menon and Judge Sahu said, “We do not find any error in the order of Single Judge interfering with the order of punishment and setting aside the compulsory retirement.” The Double Bench said that the petitioner will be entitled for interest @9% on salary due from the date of passing of the impugned order date 15.9.2020 till realization. “We affirm other reliefs granted to respondent Bhoi in the impugned order,” said the Double Bench.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here