Tweet
HC order a wake-up call for erring officers
If the decision of the Jharkhand High Court recently exonerating former Director General of Police Vishnu Dayal Ram has sanctioned the propriety of the secret service fund, it has also sounded a warning note for the officers who withheld his retirement benefits.
As per the law, a person cannot be denied service benefits unless he is convicted or at least chargesheeted by a court of law. Ram was neither charge-sheeted nor convicted although his retirement benefits were withheld at the behest of the Principal Accountant General of Jharkhand. Ram is said to have a claim of about `10 lakh as gratuity payment.
Provisions in the service rules for Government employees state that pecuniary loss caused to the claimant may be realised even from the personal account of the officer responsible for the lapse.
In this particular case, following a PIL in the Jharkhand High Court against Ram in connection with his alleged role in the SS Fund scam, the AG directed the treasury officer of Doranda treasury on December 20, 2011 to stop payment of his gratuity under Rule 6 (2) of the All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefit rule, 1958). Following this, the treasury officer stopped the payment of gratuity of Ram.
Interestingly, the particular rule can be invoked only if there is a departmental or judicial proceeding pending against the employee. Besides, the State Home department memo dated October 11, 2011 clearly lays down that the case of Ram does not fall under Rule 6 (2) Since neither the CBI had initiated any inquiry against Ram nor had the High Court passed any order against him. The Law department too had advised the State Government to make final pension and gratuity payment to Ram.
Earlier, in 2009, the State Government had recommended a CBI probe into withdrawals from the secret service fund by the then DG the then Additional DG of Police (Special Branch) following a PIL in the High Court seeking a CBI probe into the matter. Subsequently, Ram challenged the notification in the High Court citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in an earlier case.The apex court had turned down the demand of the complainant. Subsequently, the High Court stayed the impugned notification of the State Government.
Besides, there are cases in which departmental and judicial proceedings are pending against officers of the state government, but they are enjoying retirement benefits on the ground of an authority slip issued by the AG.
If the decision of the Jharkhand High Court recently exonerating former Director General of Police Vishnu Dayal Ram has sanctioned the propriety of the secret service fund, it has also sounded a warning note for the officers who withheld his retirement benefits.
As per the law, a person cannot be denied service benefits unless he is convicted or at least chargesheeted by a court of law. Ram was neither charge-sheeted nor convicted although his retirement benefits were withheld at the behest of the Principal Accountant General of Jharkhand. Ram is said to have a claim of about `10 lakh as gratuity payment.
Provisions in the service rules for Government employees state that pecuniary loss caused to the claimant may be realised even from the personal account of the officer responsible for the lapse.
In this particular case, following a PIL in the Jharkhand High Court against Ram in connection with his alleged role in the SS Fund scam, the AG directed the treasury officer of Doranda treasury on December 20, 2011 to stop payment of his gratuity under Rule 6 (2) of the All India Services (death-cum-retirement benefit rule, 1958). Following this, the treasury officer stopped the payment of gratuity of Ram.
Interestingly, the particular rule can be invoked only if there is a departmental or judicial proceeding pending against the employee. Besides, the State Home department memo dated October 11, 2011 clearly lays down that the case of Ram does not fall under Rule 6 (2) Since neither the CBI had initiated any inquiry against Ram nor had the High Court passed any order against him. The Law department too had advised the State Government to make final pension and gratuity payment to Ram.
Earlier, in 2009, the State Government had recommended a CBI probe into withdrawals from the secret service fund by the then DG the then Additional DG of Police (Special Branch) following a PIL in the High Court seeking a CBI probe into the matter. Subsequently, Ram challenged the notification in the High Court citing the ruling of the Supreme Court in an earlier case.The apex court had turned down the demand of the complainant. Subsequently, the High Court stayed the impugned notification of the State Government.
Besides, there are cases in which departmental and judicial proceedings are pending against officers of the state government, but they are enjoying retirement benefits on the ground of an authority slip issued by the AG.
