Sir, I humbly request your advice in the below-mentioned case.
Some Background:
Two best friends, Laxmi and Jyoti, joined Delhi Women's Polytechnic (under DTTE) in 1979. After a few years, the two friends were appointed ad hoc to the post of lecturers (in the absence of any rules).
They went about their duties happily and diligently (they were the best of friends) until one day it came to light that the HOD was about to retire and a vacancy had arisen. The two were the natural successors.
All hell broke loose, and these two became sworn enemies fighting for the HOD post.
Laxmi claimed the post, contending that she had seniority by 3 months. Jyoti claimed the post on the grounds of her higher education.
Finally, Jyoti got the post after pulling strings with the higher authorities. It is claimed by Laxmi that she had links with the Director (Department of Training and Technical Education, DTTE) which were morally questionable.
Laxmi, seeing the opportunity slip, took a wrong step and submitted a fake MA degree, which was entered in her service book.
Jyoti raised objections and again, after using her connections, got the DTTE to start a departmental inquiry, following which an FIR was lodged. It should be noted here that the whole department (including the Principal and HOD) supported Laxmi for the promotion, owing to the fact that she was a better worker/teacher.
The matter ended up in the Court of City Magistrate Delhi (Special Cell).
In the meanwhile, Laxmi retired with superannuation and got a provisional pension but no gratuity. After 20 years in court, the judge let her go with a penalty of Rs. 10,000 and a bond.
Advice Needed:
Since the proceedings have concluded, should Laxmi approach the Department to release the gratuity? Is this gross misconduct or a serious crime? Also, please note that there have been no pecuniary losses. She is afraid that the Department may deny her the same or, even worse, withhold or reduce her pension.
Most humbly, Thanking you
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Some Background:
Two best friends, Laxmi and Jyoti, joined Delhi Women's Polytechnic (under DTTE) in 1979. After a few years, the two friends were appointed ad hoc to the post of lecturers (in the absence of any rules).
They went about their duties happily and diligently (they were the best of friends) until one day it came to light that the HOD was about to retire and a vacancy had arisen. The two were the natural successors.
All hell broke loose, and these two became sworn enemies fighting for the HOD post.
Laxmi claimed the post, contending that she had seniority by 3 months. Jyoti claimed the post on the grounds of her higher education.
Finally, Jyoti got the post after pulling strings with the higher authorities. It is claimed by Laxmi that she had links with the Director (Department of Training and Technical Education, DTTE) which were morally questionable.
Laxmi, seeing the opportunity slip, took a wrong step and submitted a fake MA degree, which was entered in her service book.
Jyoti raised objections and again, after using her connections, got the DTTE to start a departmental inquiry, following which an FIR was lodged. It should be noted here that the whole department (including the Principal and HOD) supported Laxmi for the promotion, owing to the fact that she was a better worker/teacher.
The matter ended up in the Court of City Magistrate Delhi (Special Cell).
In the meanwhile, Laxmi retired with superannuation and got a provisional pension but no gratuity. After 20 years in court, the judge let her go with a penalty of Rs. 10,000 and a bond.
Advice Needed:
Since the proceedings have concluded, should Laxmi approach the Department to release the gratuity? Is this gross misconduct or a serious crime? Also, please note that there have been no pecuniary losses. She is afraid that the Department may deny her the same or, even worse, withhold or reduce her pension.
Most humbly, Thanking you
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ripa,
It is discernible from the available inputs, some of which seem to be admitted facts giving rise to the cause of action. Being a lecturer in the State-run Delhi Women's Polytechnic, the individual was a Government servant governed by the Government Servants Conduct Rules and the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules. Against the misconduct of submission of a fake educational qualification certificate, serious charges might have been framed against her, apart from lodging a simultaneous criminal complaint with the Police, which might have ended in conviction with a fine after a trial by the City Magistrate.
In view of the pendency of the criminal case as well as the departmental disciplinary proceedings, she would not have been permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the meantime and would have been placed under suspension and paid provisional pension equal to subsistence allowance.
In view of the conviction with a fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- by the Criminal Court, now the Department may dismiss her services, and as such, she would not be eligible to get terminal benefits like gratuity and pension.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
6108It is discernible from the available inputs, some of which seem to be admitted facts giving rise to the cause of action. Being a lecturer in the State-run Delhi Women's Polytechnic, the individual was a Government servant governed by the Government Servants Conduct Rules and the Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules. Against the misconduct of submission of a fake educational qualification certificate, serious charges might have been framed against her, apart from lodging a simultaneous criminal complaint with the Police, which might have ended in conviction with a fine after a trial by the City Magistrate.
In view of the pendency of the criminal case as well as the departmental disciplinary proceedings, she would not have been permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the meantime and would have been placed under suspension and paid provisional pension equal to subsistence allowance.
In view of the conviction with a fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- by the Criminal Court, now the Department may dismiss her services, and as such, she would not be eligible to get terminal benefits like gratuity and pension.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Benefits.doc
SBT Vs Asst. Labour Commissioner- Gratuity dismissed employee-LTS.PD F