Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab and others

Ranjit Singh, J.—Petitioner was serving as Inspector in the Cooperative Societies, Patti, District Amritsar. He retired on 31.12.1993. As per the petitioner ''No Due Certificate'' was issued to him and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time. On retirement, the respondents were under obligation to prepare the pension documents of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, was not released his pension and other retiral benefits. Having waited for some time, the petitioner served notice u/s 80 CPC for release of his pensionary benefits. Despite various reminders nothing moved. On 14.12.1994, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 3 ordered respondent No. 5 to release the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner and also asked the department to explain the cause of delay. Instead of releasing pension, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 26.06.1995 relating to an event which was dated 15.04.1991. The petitioner was required to submit his reply within 20 days. Departmental proceedings, thereafter, were initiated against him and were completed on 12.10.1998 i.e. after three years of serving the charge-sheet and approximately after 5 years of his retirement. The petitioner was held guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. The petitioner made a representation pleading that he has been falsely implicated in the departmental inquiry at the instance of Gurdip Singh, Accountant and further requested respondent No. 5 to release his 100% pension. When even the provisional pension was not released, petitioner approached this Court on 14.12.1998 through the present writ petition.

The writ petition was admitted on 17.11.1999 while admitting the writ petition, the admitting bench observed that prima facie the charge related to the events which had happened in April 1991. The charge-sheet was served on 26.06.1995. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.1993. Thus, the charge-sheet was served nearly two years after retirement of the petitioner and was for an event which was more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of charge-sheet. Further proceedings against the petitioner were stayed. Directions were issued to release the pension to the petitioner provisionally.

Written statement on behalf of the respondent-State and other respondents is filed. It is stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. As per the reply, he is involved in the embezzlement of Rs. 4.45 lacs, as a consequence of which Arbitration cases under Sections 55 and 56 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 were prepared pertaining to the Bhure Nau Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. The petitioner was held responsible for embezzlement which he has challenged u/s 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. His appeals were dismissed in all the 14 cases of award. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said award was pending. It is, accordingly, stated that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands. Incidentally, the revision was also dismissed and the petitioner has separately challenged the order by filing a writ petition.

While responding to the plea of the petitioner regarding non-releasing of his retiral benefits, it is stated that provisional pension was being paid to him since retirement. GPF fund amounting to Rs. 38,888/- was also released to him on 16.12.1994. Remaining retiral benefits were not paid to him on the ground that the recovery can be effected from the petitioner under Rule 2.2,(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II.

The claim of the petitioner on merits otherwise is contested which may not need any notice as the present writ petition can be easily decided purely on the questions of law raised by the petitioner.

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is based on Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. This rule is clear in its affect, as it provides that departmental proceedings if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment then the same shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government and further shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. The provisions of this Rule 2.2(b) are reproduced below :--

Rule 2.2(b)

The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement provided that--

(1)xxx xxx xxx

(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.

(3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution and the Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed.

Relying on the above rule, the counsel for the petitioner states that this Rule is a complete bar for initiating disciplinary proceedings in respect of an incident or an event which has taken place four years prior to the service of a charge-sheet if the employer is a retired employee. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the event for which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted is dated 15.4.1991 and the charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner on 26.06.1995. It is thus clear that the charge-sheet was issued in respect of an event which was four years prior to the date of serving charge-sheet. Accordingly Rule 2.2 (b) (2)(ii) would stand as a complete bar for holding depart mental proceedings against the petitioner.

In support, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this Court in case D.K. Kaushal v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another, 2010 (3) S.C.T. 423 and unreported judgment in the case CWP No. 10456 of 2007 Raghubir Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another, decided on 11.0.2008 where the proceedings against the delinquent employee were quashed on the same ground.

In Raghubir Singh''s case (supra), the Court has held as under:-- A perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that complete embargo has been imposed prohibiting holding of an enquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the initiation of a enquiry. Therefore, a departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against an employee in respect of an event that has taken place more than four years prior to the date of institution of such an enquiry. The matter came up for consideration before a Division bench of this Court in Baldhir Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (CWP No. 17458 of 2007 decided on 18.7.2008 of which one of us (M.M Kumar, J) is a Member. We have also noticed that the judgment in L.B Gupta''s case (Supra) and in the case of M.P Goswami v. State of Punjab, (CWP No. 17382 of 2005 decided on 7.8.2007) also fully apply to the facts of the present case.

Besides this, there are number of precedents which can be noticed here but can be avoided to over burdening the record. In view of the ratio of law as noticed above the action of the respondents in issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner in respect of an event which took place four years prior to the service of charge-sheet can not be sustained. The same is set aside. The consequential proceedings that have been held on this charge-sheet are also set aside.

The writ petition is allowed.