BEFORE THE LOKAYUKTA, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Complaint No. 110 of 2017

Name of the Complainant: Shri Naresh Kadyan

Date of Report: 24.02.2020

Justice Nawal Kishore Agarwal, Lokayukta, Haryana (Oral)

In brief, the allegations as per the complaint filed by the

complainant Shri Naresh Kadyan son of Shri Om Parkash Kadyan,

resident of C-38, Rose Apartment, Sector -14, Rohini, Delhi-85, are as

under.

That the respondents namely; (1) The Chief Executive, Haryana

Khadi & Village Industries, Board, Panchkula, (2) Shri Pardeep

Kasni, IAS, Managing Director, Haryana Land Reclamation

Development Corporation, Chandigarh, (3) Shri Ashok Sangwan,

IAS, Director of Industries, Haryana, Chandigarh, (4) Shri Rohtash

Kharab, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Yamunanagar (5) Shri Vikas

Gupta, IAS, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, (6) Shri

Rippudaman Singh Dhillon, IAS, Additional Secretary to

Government of Haryana, Fisheries Department, Chandigarh and

 2

(7) Shri Y.S. Malik, IAS, Additional Secretary to NITI Ayog, New

Delhi had compelled the complainant to move for voluntary

retirement before 5 years on 05.08.2014 and at the time of

promotion he was kept under suspension without any reason. It has

been further alleged that the complainant joined the Khadi and

Village Industries Board as Demonstrator and further promoted as

Technical Supervisor on 30.01.1995. It has been further alleged that

the complainant was kept under suspension without any rhyme and

reason; subsistence allowance was not increased @ 75% after six

months of his suspension. It has been further alleged that

complainant’s leave on medical ground for the period from

04.03.2013 to 01.05.2013 were rejected without without any

justification on ground that the sickness and fitness certificates

issued by the Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad were not genuine,

whereas the Haryana Police confirmed the said certificates and

found that the same has been issued by the aforesaid Hospital,

which was recognized for treatment and care by the Government of

Haryana, due to the fact that the officials of the Board were biased
 3

against the complainant. It has been further alleged that no proper

opportunity of personal hearing was granted to him It has been

further alleged that the Board executed agreement with certain terms

and conditions between the Board and private suppliers and there

was a dispute regarding supply of some objectionable material. It

has been further alleged that in the Vigilance Enquiry, it was

concluded that excess payment to the tune of Rs. 10,25,638/- was

made by the Chief Executive Officer, who is liable for the same. It

has been further alleged that the complainant was targetted and

badly harassed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board and Rs.

9031/- were deducted from the pay of the complainant on the

ground that he was negligent in overall supervision in his duties. It

has been further alleged that the appeal of the complainant against

the aforesaid deduction was kept pending since 2006 by the

Chairman of the Board. It has been further alleged that even after

the voluntary retirement under protest, the Board released the annual

increments for many years and A.C.P. without fixing the

responsibility of the officers of the Board and the instructions issued

 4

by the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana dated 06.12.2001

were not complied with. It has been furher alleged that team of SAO

and A.O. recommended FIR against transporter and the complainant

was also Supervisor of the said team. It has been further alleged that

complainant was given additional charge of various Districts and

also charge of the State Committee for Slaughter Houses, but for that

he was not given any extra remuneration, It has been further alleged

that some portion of complainant’s gratuity amount was not released

even after serving of two legal notices. It has been further alleged

that as per the past practice of the Board, the post of Technical

Supervisor (Leather) is always placed after D.O. (L), but the

complainant was holding the post of T.S. (L) till voluntary

retirement. It has been further alleged that as per the Board Act,

Government of Haryana can appoint Chief Executive and Secretary

of the Board, but Class-III Section Officer was re-designated as

Secretary without approval of the Government of Haryana, whereas

Senior Accounts Officer alongwith Accounts Officer and Section

Officer of the Finance Department, placed under the non-S.A.S.

 5

Class-III Section Officer (Legal and Recovery) of the Board. It has

been further alleged that after his voluntary retirement the

complainant moved an application for withdrawal of the request for

retirement, but the same was not allowed by the Board despite the

fact that Board was facing problem of manpower and besides there

being many examples for withdrawal of the VRS in Haryana.

Vide this authority letter dated 01.03.2017, a copy of the

complaint was forwarded to the Managing Director, Haryana Khadi

& Village Industries Board, Panchkula requesting him to enquire

into the matter and furnish his report to this institution within 45

days positively. The matter remained under correspondence and

ultimately, in turn the Chief Executive, Haryana Khadi & Village

Industries Board, Panchkula, had vide his letter dated 23.05.2017

furnished the enquiry report. A copy of the said report was placed

on record.

A copy of the aforesaid report was sent to the complainant for

information and submitting his written objections, if any. He was

also asked to appear in this institution on 23.08.2017 at 10.30 A.M. in

 6

connection with his complaint at his own expenses. He had filed

objections dated 20.05.2017, 06.06.2017 and 08.06.2017, copy of which

was placed on record and copy thereof was also sent to the Chief

Executive Officer, Haryana Khadi & Village Industries Board,

Panchkula for information and submitting his parawise reply to this

institution. He was also asked to depute an officer/ official, well

conversant with the facts of the case to appear in this institution on

23.08.2017 at 10.30 A.M. alongwith the relevant records for

arguments in the matter.

Preliminary enquiry in the matter was conducted by the

learned Registrar of this institution who, after holding preliminary

enquiry and conducting the essential proceedings, made his report

dated 16.04.2019 as under:-

“This complaint has been brought by Mr. Naresh Kadyan S/o

Sh. Om Parkash Kadyan, r/o C-38, Rose Apartment, Sector-14,

Rohini, Delhi-85 against (1) The Chief Executive, Haryana Khadi and

Village Industries Board, Bays 62-65, Sector-2, Panchkula (2) Mr.

Pardeep Kasni, IAS, Managing Director, Haryana Land Reclamation

 7

Development Corporation, Chandigarh (3) Mr. Ashok Sangwan, IAS,

Director of Industries Haryana, Chandigarh (4) Mr. Rohtash Kharab,

IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Yamunanagar (5) Mr. Vikas Gupta,

IAS, Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (6) Mr. R.S. Dhillon,

IAS, Additional Secretary to Government of Haryana, Fisheries

Department, Chandigarh (7) Mr. Y.S. Malik, IAS, Additional

Secretary to NITI Ayog, New Delhi.

2. In brief the complainant joined Khadi and Village Industries

Board as Demonstrator and promoted as Technical Supervisor on

30.01.1995 in Haryana Khadi & Village Industries Board. The

complainant alleged that he was compelled for voluntary retirement

before 5 years at the time of promotion on 05.08.2014 as he was kept

under suspension without any reason and subsistence allowances

were not increased @ 75% after six months of suspension. The

complainant alleged that the leave on medical grounds were rejected

without any justification because the Board was biased against the

officials who submitted the Sarvodaya Hospital Faridabad, sickness &

fitness certificates alleging the same were not genuine whereas

 8

Haryana Police confirmed that both certificates were genuine and

legally issued by Sarvodaya Hospital Faridabad. It is alleged that the

Board executed agreement with certain terms and conditions between

Board and private suppliers, whereas one of condition was either to

replace the objectionable materials or to repay the excess payments, if

any, and the responsibility was fixed on the supplier as per the

agreement but he was placed under suspension without speaking

orders and was not reinstated even after completion of the enquiry.

3. The complainant further alleged that the suppliers were not

booked for supply of sub standard materials nor booked for the

violation of the terms and conditions and breach of the agreements. It

is alleged that Vigilance Department assessed the material cost of Rs.

3,16,160/- and the payment made was Rs. 13,41,798/- as such excess

payment of Rs. 10,25,638/- was paid and the Department did not fix

the responsibility of DEEO. It is alleged that he was hold negligent in

overall supervision, deducting Rs. 9031/- from his pay whereas the

appeal is pending since 2006 before the Chairman of the Board. It is

alleged that after the VRS under protest, Board released the annual
 9

increment for many years along with ACP withheld unlawfully

without seeking responsibilities on trained officials of the Board.

Complainant alleged that team of SAO and AO recommended FIR

against transporter and the complainant was also the supervisor of

said team but after the Board of Directors decision dated 13.10.2016

and a letter of Board dated 27.12.2016, portion of gratuity was

withheld and was not released instead of two legal notices. It is alleged

that he obtained voluntary retirement under protest. The complainant

moved to withdraw his voluntary retirement but not allowed by the

Board whereas Board facing problem of manpower.

4. After receiving the complaint, the copy of complaint was

forward to the Managing Director, Haryana Khadi and Village

Industries Board to get the matter enquired into and submit the

enquiry report. Enquiry report received. Complainant filed the

objections and parawise reply to the objections have also been received.

5. Enquiry report mark ‘A’ proves that Sh. R.R. Banswal, IAS

(Retd.) was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into, who

submitted his report. The first allegation of the complainant was that
 10

he approached the Hon’ble High Court in a public interest litigation

and then the appointment of Lokayukta Haryana was made. This

matter need not to be enquired into.

6. The second allegation of the complainant is that he was

promoted as Technical Supervisor on 30.01.1995 in Haryana Khadi &

Village Industries Board but was compelled to move voluntary

retirement before 5 years at the time of promotion as on 05.04.2014

because he was kept under suspension as on 05.08.2014 without any

reason and subsistence allowance was not increased at the rate of 75%

after 6 months of his suspension.

7. The enquiry report proves that the complainant moved a letter

to the Chief Executive, Haryana Khadi & Village Industries Board,

Panchkula requesting for voluntary retirement on 05.08.2014. The

contents of the letter are as under:

“It is humbly submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances,

I am not able to serve any further in Haryana Khadi & Village

Industries Board, where as I am working since April 5, 1984

 11

and served very dedicatedly with honesty and sincerely, hence

keeping my 30 years service in view, I may kindly be allowed to

proceed on voluntary retirement with all service benefits and

pension etc. with immediate effect exempting one month

notice.”

The request of voluntary retirement of the complainant was put

up before the Board of Directors meeting held on 06.08.2014 under

item No. 3. His request for voluntary retirement was considered. In

the meeting three charge-sheets No. 1744-45 dated 05.06.2013,

charge-sheet No. 1735-36 dated 04.06.2013 and charge-sheet No.

12363 dated 24.02.2010 against the complainant were also considered

and the Board of Directors decided to accept the request of voluntary

retirement of the complainant keeping in view unavoidable

circumstances. The Board also took the lenient view, decided to file the

above said three charge-sheets by issuing him warning and also

treating the period of his suspension as leave of kind due and

accordingly the office order was issued by the Chief Executive on

 12

07.08.2014 vide endst No. HRD/Admn./EA-1/6949-82 dated

07.08.2014

8. The request of the complainant submitted for voluntary

retirement clearly proves that he sought the voluntary retirement

voluntarily and in his request he did not point out that he was

compelled to seek the voluntary retirement. Once the complainant

requested the authorities for voluntary retirement which was

voluntarily made without any coercion and because of his personal

unavoidable circumstances and his voluntary retirement was

accepted, the Board was within its rights not to allow him to

withdraw the said voluntary retirement. The complainant cannot be

allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath. The complainant took

the benefit of the lenient view of the Board against his three charge-

sheets and after that the complainant became wise and approached the

Board for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement which has rightly

been refused. So, this allegation of the complainant that he was

compelled to seek voluntary retirement and his voluntary retirement

has not been allowed to be withdrawn, has no merit.

 13

9. Regarding release of subsistence allowance at the rate of 75%

after 6 months of suspension, the enquiry officer examined the record

and from the record it revealed that the proposal was submitted by the

office on 15.07.2014 for the increase/decrease of the subsistence

allowance of the complainant through the Secretary of the Board to the

Chief Executive that the complainant has not provided the required

documents for the grant of subsistence allowance and also the

behaviour of the complainant was objectionable, the subsistence of

50% already given to the complainant may be reduced. The Chief

Executive marked the file to Secretary for discussion but no final order

was passed. Complainant was informed through a letter

HRB/A/c./EA-6/Subsistence Allowance/12327 dated 19.03.2015 that

the subsistence allowance for the period 29.04.2013 to 06.08.2014 was

given as per rule. As per the rule where the period of suspension

exceeds six months, the authority which made or is deemed to have

made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of

subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of first

six months. It is also provided in the rules that no payment under sub

Rule (1) shall be made unless the Government Employees furnished a

 14

certificate and the authority, which made or is deemed to have made

the order of suspension is satisfied that he is not engaged in any other

employment, business, profession or vocation. The enquiry report

further proves that while accepting the retirement of the complainant,

the suspension period of the complainant of 435 days from 29.04.2013

to 06.08.2014 was treated as leave of kind due which was settled vide

endst No. 1987-90, dated 05.11.2014 in which 220 days were

converted into earned leave and 245 days were converted into EOL.

Since the complainant himself did not submit the documents at the

appropriate time and ultimately his suspension period has been

decided at the time of his voluntary retirement, now the complainant

left with no grievance in this regard. The complainant himself was

negligent, not submitting the documents, so, he cannot be allowed to

raise any little finger on the competent authority.

10. Another allegation of the complainant is that the leave on

medical ground was rejected without any justification because Board

biased official claimed that the sickness and fitness certificates from

04.03.2013 to 01.05.2013 which were issued by Sarvodaya Hospital,

 15

Faridabad were not genuine but Haryana Police confirmed that both

certificates were genuine and legally issued by the Sarvodaya

Hospital, besides it Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad was recognised for

treatment and care by the Government of Haryana. The enquiry

officer reached at the conclusion that the Sarvodaya Hospital

Faridabad has been recognised for treatment by the Government of

Haryana and the sickness and fitness certificates of the complainant

were issued by the Doctors of the Sarvodaya Hospital Faridabad. The

Deputy Commissioner of Police Central, Faridabad vide his letter No.

2166/PC dated 19.11.2016 addressed to the Police Commissioner

Faridabad confirmed that both the certificates were issued by the

Doctors of the Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-19, Faridabad. The main

plea of the Board is that Sh. Naresh Kumar Kadyan was present at the

headquarter on 04.04.2013, when the Chairperson of the Board,

Professor Rati Ram was present in the office whereas the Hospital had

advised him rest as per the medical certificate. The Board further

stated that even, after the expiry of the medical leave, Sh. Naresh

Kumar Kadyan did not join his duty after 15.04.2013 and he also did

not submit medical fitness certificate to the office. He was directed to

 16

join his duty in the Board Office vide order dated 01.03.2013 but he

did not join his duty. Keeping in view, the seriousness of the matter he

was issued charge-sheet under rule-7. Later on, the matter was put up

before the Board of Directors along with enquiry report as submitted

by the enquiry officer and after considering his application for

voluntary retirement, the Board dropped the charges against him.

11. It is the competent authority to satisfy himself about any

medical certificate issued even by the recognised institution as to

whether the certificate is genuine or not. A certificate may have been

issued by the Doctor of an institution but it does not itself conveys

that in fact the said employee who obtained the certificate was

suffering from illness because some of illness are such that the Doctor

cannot decide as to whether a patient is actually suffering from that

illness or only pretending to that illness. Just as one can say that he

has pain in chest he may have or may not have, the Doctor cannot

definitely decide, so , in case the competent authority has some doubt

on the certificate obtained by the complainant regarding genuineness

of illness of the complainant and thereafter he also did not join the
 17

service and then the action was recommended against him then no

fault can be found with the competent authority and now the matter

has been settled and the charge-sheet has been dropped giving the

warning alongwith other charges, so, the complainant has left with no

grievance and no further enquiry or investigation is required by this

institution.

12. Next allegation of the complainant is that allegation against

him were that he inflicted the loss of Rs. 10,25,638/- on the

department by purchasing the gas chhulla sets on higher price than

the actual prevalent price of Rs. 760/- in the open market.

Complainant was charge-sheeted under rule-7 of Haryana Civil

Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 for the loss of Rs.

10,25,638/- occurred due to his negligency. The matter was enquired

into by Sh. V.K. Sharma, an enquiry officer who reported that all the

charges levelled against him were proved. For taking further action,

the Board keeping in view the application for voluntary retirement

had decided to drop the said charges by issuing him a warning and

accepted his voluntary retirement. The lenient view has been taken
 18

against the complainant at the time of accepting his voluntary

retirement, now, the complainant is estopped by act and conduct to

agitate that matter again. Next allegation of the complainant is that a

sum of Rs. 9031/- has been deducted from his pay whereas the appeal

was still pending. The complainant was issued a charge-sheet No.

HRB/Admn./24807 dated 19.02.2000 under rule-7. On the basis of

this charge-sheet, a deduction of Rs. 9031/- was made from his salary.

The Chairperson of the Board had decided the appeal of complainant

vide his order dated 22.03.2018 that the recovery has been made from

all concerned persons who were responsible for causing financial loss

to the Board. The decision of the Chairperson was conveyed to the

complainant. Thus, this issue has been settled at the level of

Chairperson.

13. Next allegation of the complainant is that after VRS under

protest, the Board released the annual increments for many years

alongwith the ACP’s withheld unlawfully, without fixing

responsibilities on trained Board officials because instructions issued

on 06.12.2001 by the office of Chief Secretary to Government of

 19

Haryana were not implemented. All the due service benefits have

already been given to the complainant. The enquiry officer concluded

that due service benefit have already been given to the complainant.

He also suggested that Board may fix the responsibility for delay in

release of benefits. So, no further enquiry is required again.

14. Next allegation of the complainant is that portion of the

gratuity amount has not released as yet even after issuance of legal

notice by him. Charge-sheet was issued to the complainant and the

enquiry was conducted by Sh. P.C. Singhal, Retd. District and

Sessions Judge. The Inquiry Officer in his report held complainant

responsible of the losses of Rs. 76,093/-, an amount of Rs. 76,093/-

was withheld from the gratuity amount of the complainant. In this

connection an FIR No. 37 was also lodged under section 407/120-B of

IPC in Police Station Faridabad. The Deputy Commissioner of Police

vide letter 1633/PC dated 30.08.2016 has informed the Police

Commissioner, Faridabad that during investigation no bad intention

and involvement of the staff was noticed. The case was of a civil

nature, the department can recover the amount through Civil Court
 20

by filing a civil suit against the transporter and concerned persons. In

the enquiry it was noticed that 131 kg copper was handed over to

approved transporter of Sterilite Company and rest 7 Kg was with the

clerk-cum-store keeper.

15. Now a recovery suit has been filed against the transporter. As

per the enquiry, there is no direct evidence regarding the involvement

of the complainant for the shortage of 131 Kg copper in consignment

agency.

16. Since a civil suit for recovery has been filed against the

transporter and the portion of gratuity of the complainant has been

withheld, so, now it is department finally to decide as to whether that

amount withheld has been rightly withheld or the same is to be

released. In this regard the department is to decide forthwith.

17. Accordingly a recommendation is required to be made to the

competent authority that the dispute regarding withholding of the

gratuity of the complainant is to be decided after affording the

opportunity of hearing to the complainant and in case the recovery

 21

suit has also been filed against the complainant in that eventuality the

decision of the civil court is to be awaited. The allegation of the

complainant about TS (L) always placed after DO (L) and he was

holding TS (L) position since 30.01.1995 till voluntary retirement

under protest but was treated junior than Demonstrator (L) Yash

Parkash Goyat and Chiman Lal, cannot be look into at this stage. The

complainant, if has any grievance regarding his seniority, he can

separately approach the competent authority or the competent court.

18. The complainant has alleged that as per the mechanism

developed and implemented in case of 29 applicants under REGP

scheme is followed but he was punished, whereas similar mechanism,

now used as general practice by the Board. “If the complainant was

aggrieved, he could challenge the same before competent court of law

at appropriate time. Now, he cannot be allowed to agitate.

19. With regard to the allegation of the complainant that the

complainant raised the objections against the appointment of Mr. Raj

Krishan Sharma, Section Officer (L&R) as Secretary of the Board

without approval of the Government of Haryana. He stated that Mr.

 22

Raj Krishan Sharma is a class-III, Section Officer (L&R) and cannot

be appointed as Secretary of the Board. The complainant had right at

the appropriate time to approach the appropriate forum. He cannot be

allowed to challenge the appointment and promotion of each and every

person. The enquiry officer also reached at the conclusion that the

appointment of Sh. Raj Krishan Sharma on the post of Secretary does

not confirm the standard and status of the Secretary of the Board as

per defined service conditions. It has also been noticed that Sh. Virat,

HCS was posted as Secretary in Haryana Khadi & Village Industries

Board by the State Government but he could not continue on this post

as Sh. Raj Krishan Sharma filed a CWP No. 16488 of 2017 in the

Hon’ble High Court against the posting order of Sh. Virat, HCS

issued by the State Government. After acceptance of his voluntary

retirement, the complainant has no legal right to withdraw his

application for voluntary retirement and the Board has rightly

rejected his application for withdrawal of the retirement. All the

allegations of the complainant not proved except one. Only one

allegation of the complainant is required to be considered in case,

portion of gratuity which was withhold has not been released to him
 23

and in that situation the competent authority can be asked to enquire

into the matter after affording the opportunity to the complainant as

to whether the portion of gratuity withheld has rightly been withheld

or not or in case a civil suit for recovery also been filed against the

complainant with regard to 131 Kg. copper wire, then the decision of

the civil court is to be awaited. Accordingly, the report is submitted

to the Hon’ble Lokayukta for final consideration.”

On receipt of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the

learned Registrar, the same was forwarded to the complainant, who

in turn by way of objections to the preliminary enquiry report has

filed voluminous papers in the form of several paper books till

14.02.2020 and also argued the matter at length.

The matter has been discussed, heard and the entire relevant

material and evidence as well as report of the learned Registrar have

also been gone into minutely.

By way of objections to the preliminary enquiry report

submitted by the Registrar as well as during oral arguments, it has

been submitted by the complainant that he has been compelled to

 24

take compulsory retirement; he has not been paid 75% subsistence

allowance after six months of his suspension; while suspending him

speaking order has not been passed; after furnishing enquiry report

whey he has not been reinstated as on 29.05.2014; charge-sheet

regarding suspension was not issued to him; leave encashment was

not paid to him by wrongfully adjusting some of the period of

suspension as leave without pay; despite sickness and fitness was

verified by the Faridabad police, leave was not granted to him;

payment of gratuity was not made to him; why the order dated

04.09.2006 was not circulated promptly and immediately, why it was

circulated on 05.10.2006 and why appeal, which was preferred by him

immediately on 05.10.2006 was decided after his retirement i.e. vide

order dated 22.03.2018. He further submits that the instant complaint

has been filed by him for public interest as well as for his own

interest. However, he failed to point out the prayer made by him in

the complaint filed by him on 30.01.2017, on that he submits that

whatever he has written in the complaint is his grievance.

 25

Vide communication/ objection received in the office of this

Authority on 11.02.2020 in which while affirming receipt of gratuity

amount of Rs. 76093/-, he prayed for issuance of the following

directions:-

“1. Leave on medical grounds may be sanctioned, since

4.3.2013 to 1.5.2013.
2. Appeal against deduction of Rs. 9031/-, may kindly be
accepted, releasing deduction amount.
3. No personal hearing was granted before Board of

Directors, ex-parte decision as on 6.8.2014.

4. Revoke suspension order dated 29.4.2013, suspension

period may kindly be treated on duty, leave encashment

also be released.

5. Interest on Rs. 76093/- along with overtime & compassion

during the period of Consignment profit.”

The Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Act of 2002’ empowers this Authority for enquiry and

investigation into the allegations and grievances against public

servants and for matters connected therewith.

 26

Section 2 (a) of it defines “act” means administrative action

taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or

finding or in any other manner and shall include willful failure to act;

Section 2 (b) defines “allegation” in relation to a public servant,

which means any affirmation that such public servant- (i) has

knowingly and intentionally abused his position as such to obtain

any undue gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to

cause undue hardship or harm to any other person; (ii) was actuated

in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal

interest, or improper or corrupt motives; (iii) is guilty of corruption,

lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant; or (iv) is in

possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his

known source of income and such pecuniary resources or property

held by the public servant personally or by any member of his family

or by some other persons on his behalf; Section 2 (e) of it defines

“complaint” which means a complaint wherein act of any allegation

or grievance is alleged to have been committed by a public servant;

Section 2 (f) of it defines “corruption” which means any act

 27

punishable under chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or under any law for the time

being in force for prevention of corruption; and Section 2 (h) of it

defines “grievance” which means the claim by a person that a right

to which he is entitled to is denied to him or is unreasonably delayed

by the act of omission or commission of a public servant or the act

complained of amounts to mal-administration.

By way of Section 9 of it certain matters have been kept out of

the purview of the enquiry by this Authority i.e. (a) in respect of

which an inquiry has been ordered under the Public Servants

(Inquiries) Act, 1850; or (b) which is not connected with the discharge

of functions as public servant of the person against whom allegation

is made; or (c) relating to “grievance of mal-administration”, any

administrative act involving the exercise of discretion except where

he is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of discretion

were absent to such an extent that discretion would not be regarded

as having been properly exercised or was exercised for corruption.

 28

Reverting to the facts of the case, it is clear and crystal that

Registrar of this Authority while conducting preliminary enquiry

has dealt with the matter in detail. From perusal of the record it is

also clear that the orders under challenge in this complaint are the

orders, which have been passed by the authorities in exercise of their

powers under statutory provisions, and in case of grievance, the

complainant was within his right to challenge the same in accordance

with law. The record further shows that several petitions have been

preferred by him before the Hon’ble High Court including C.W.P. No.

15176 of 2017, which was withdrawn by him and the Hon’ble High

Court had dismissed the same vide its decision dated 16.08.2017.

If the complainant feels that he has taken voluntary retirement

under pressure, then he could have availed the appropriate remedy

before the court of law by pleading and proving the aforesaid

allegations, but it is not in the domain of this Authority under the Act

of 2002 to declare his voluntary retirement as illegal and void, and to

unsettle the decisions taken by the authorities in exercise of their

 29

quasi judicial authority, in terms of the provisions contained in the

Act of 2002, mentioned herein above.

Even if the complainant is aggrieved for non-payment of

interest on gratuity amount, he is within his right to claim the

aforesaid relief before appropriate statutory forum, meant therefor,

as to grant any such relief is not in the domain of this Authority.

Considering the decisions taken by the quasi judicial authorities

in exercise of powers conferred upon them under the statutory

provisions and rules made thereunder; and the fact that the aforesaid

decisions cannot be termed as their administrative decisions within

the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act of 2002, I do not see any merit

in the objections raised by the complainant to the preliminary enquiry

report submitted by the Registrar.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of concern that appeal, which was

filed in the year 2006 has been disposed of in the year 2018 after an

inordinate delay of 12 years and also non-release of annual

increments for many years alongwith A.C.P., for which the Enquiry

Officer Shri R.R. Banswal, IAS (Retd.) in his enquiry report dated
 30

23.05.2018 also recommended for fixing of responsibility therefor.

Though the appeals are being heard under the statutory provisions,

but, for this it is necessary for the Competent Authority to initiate

appropriate enquiry in the matter and whosoever found guilty is

required to be punished appropriately. Therefore, it is recommended

to the Competent Authority to initiate appropriate enquiry, fixing the

responsibility of the public servants for delaying release of annual

increments for many years, as pointed out by Shri R.R. Banswal, IAS

(Retired) in his enquiry report dated 23.05.2018 and for pendency of

complainant’s appeal for inordinate period of around 12 years; and

whosoever found guilty, award punishment to him/ them.

Action taken report in this regard, as required under Section

17(2) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 be sent to this Authority

within three months.

With the above recommendation, this complaint stands

disposed of.

All concerned be informed accordingly.

Sd/-
24.02.2020 Lokayukta, Haryana