L.B. Gupta, Chief Engineer-Civil (Retd.) vs The Punjab State Electricity Board

J.S. Khehar, J.—It is not disputed that the Petitioner Retired on 31.1.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 21.9.1999 was served upon him. It is also not disputed that the charges therein relates to the events for the period from 1985 to 1990.

The solitary argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is based on Rule 2.2(b) of the P.C.S. Volume II Rules (for short ''the rules''). The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced below for facility of reference:

(2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment -

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution: and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service.

It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that departmental inquiry could not have been initiated against the Petitioner in relation to the events which transpired four years before the initiation of the said inquiry. Undoubtedly, since the last event took place in 1990 and the charge sheet was served only on 21.9.1999, the very act of issuing charge is contrary to the provisions of Rule 2.2.(b) extracted above.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent contested the claim of the Petitioner by asserting that Respondent-Punjab State Electricity Board was informed of finalisation of inquiry proceedings conducted by the Vigilance Department, Punjab only on 8.8.1997 accordingly it decided to charge sheet the Petitioner by passing a resolution on 11.11.1997.

The explanation tendered by the Respondent-Board is wholly unsustainable in terms of the mandatory conditions incorporated in Rule 2.2.(b) of the Rules.

In view of the aforesaid matter, we find that the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner wholly in violation of the aforesaid rule. The same is accordingly quashed. Since the Petitioner has been harassed in coming to this Court to challenge the aforesaid charge sheet, we deem it appropriate to compensate the Petitioner by imposing costs which are quantified at Rs. 5.000/-.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- M.M. Kumar, J.