1 The challenge in these petitions is to the question of withholding of leave encashment of the petitioners on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioners. Mr.Samir Gohil, learned counsel with Mr.Gunvant Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava., and contends that in absence of any statutory provision, leave encashment cannot be withheld.
submits that in view of decision of this Court, by which the suspension orders were quashed and the Court directed the respondent - University to pay appropriate salary, withholding of leave encashment is unjustified.
3 Mr.Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University, places reliance on Rule 66, of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, particularly proviso thereto, which reads as under:
"Provided that if the Government Servant who retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation while under suspension or while disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against him and the competent authority is of the view that there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of proceedings against him, the competent authority may withhold whole or part of encashment of leave according to the facts of the relevant case."
4 Admittedly, in view of such a statutory provision, which enables the respondent to withhold leave encashment pending criminal proceedings and the Rule is not under challenge, on this ground alone, the petitions are dismissed. Notice is discharged in each petition.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Jan 16 20:58:45 IST 2020