Date of itioner v. State of Hary Haryana and others
Case Details
1 CWP WP-6227-2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 256 rishan Shri Krishan CWP-6227-2024 CW , 2025 ate of Decision: September 17, 2025 Date of itioner .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS State of Hary Haryana and others .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present :
Legal Reasoning
against him. It is trite law that in the eet or in the absence of any charge sheet or framing of ch g of charge, retiral dues of an employe ployee cannot be withheld. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for bmits el for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that while hile petitioner was working as a as a field inspector at Gohana hana. On 10.05.200 .05.2002 wheat was loaded for its del the its delivery in West-Bengal upon the instructions o tions of Food Corporation of India, G . The dia, Gohana (hereinafter ‘FCI’). The petitioner gav ner gave an undertaking on 10.05.200 ndent 05.2002 to the officials of respondent No.4-FCI con CI confirming the quality and quanti ithout quantity of the loaded wheat without seeking any g any approval or intimation of the istrict the Centre Incharge and District Manager (An er (Annexure R-1). Consequently, res an respondent No.4-FCI deducted an amount to th to the tune of Rs.81307/- on accou e loss account of negligence and the loss caused to the to the respondent-Federation. 4. Learned counsel for responden ts that ondent No.4-Federation submits that respondent N dent No.4 is not a necessary party in have rty in the present case and they have only made d ade deduction from the respondent the ndent-Corporation amounting to the tune of Rs.81 Rs.81,307/- on justifiable reasons. 5. Further, learned counsel for res could for respondent No.4-Federation could not controver trovert the fact that the reported lapse 2002 d lapse had occurred in the year 2002 and deductio duction was ordered later on by respo the respondent No.2 whereas, when the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 CWP WP-6227-2024 petitioner reti ner retired in the year 2021, there was gainst e was no charge sheet pending against him. 6. I have heard the learned counsel as the ounsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent(s) dent(s) and gone through the case file w e file with their able assistance. 7. The action of the respondent(s) liable ent(s) in making the petitioner liable for any loss s loss suffered in the year 2002 post hi ble in ost his retirement is not sustainable in the eyes of la s of law. 8. It is no longer res integra that in iminal that in case a disciplinary or criminal proceedings a dings are pending against an employe nt, the ployee on the date of retirement, the employer wo er would be well within its right to w ell as ht to withheld the gratuity as well as the leave enc ve encashment. However, the Hon’bl n of on’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of India Vs. K s. K.V. Jankiraman’ 1991 (3) SC y laid 3) SCT 317 has authoritatively laid down that the that the pending proceedings would m erved ould mean that charge sheet is served in departmen artmental proceedings or the charges iminal harges have been framed in criminal proceedings dings by the competent Court of l ate of t of law on or before the date of retirement of ent of an employee. The relevant ent is evant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced a uced as under:- sealed "16. On the first question, viz., the cover procedur proceedings can be said to have the Tribunal has held that it is o disciplinary proceedings or a prosecution is issued to the empl departmental proceedings/crim against the employee. The sea resorted to only after the charg The pendency of preliminary in will not be sufficient to enable th cover procedure. We are in agre iz., as to when for the purposes of s of inal edure the disciplinary/criminal h of have commenced, the Full Bench of t is only when a charge-memo in a in a inal r a charge sheet in a criminal employee that it can be said that the t the initiated ated criminal prosecution be sealed cover procedure is to be harge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. ued. tage ry investigation prior to that stage aled le the authorities to adopt the sealed this agreement with the Tribunal on this is PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWP WP-6227-2024 the ced by the learned counsel for the point. The contention advanced hen there are serious allegations ions appellant-authorities that when and necessary evidence to prepare and and it takes time to collect nece heet, it would not be in the interest rest issue charge-memo/charge-sheet ion to reward the employee with a th a of the purity of administration t ance oes not impress us. The acceptance promotion, increment etc. does n ult in injustice to the employees in s in of this contention would result i nary e experience so far, the preliminary many-cases. As has been the exp larly inately long time and particularly investigations take an inordinat e instance of the interested persons, ons, when they are initiated at the ins esult rately. Many times they never result they are kept pending deliberatel emo/charge sheet. If the allegations ions in the issue of any charge-memo ties are keen in investigating them, em, are serious and the authorities vant e much time to collect the relevant ordinarily it should not take mu rges. What is further, if the charges rges evidence and finalise the charges the ities have the power to suspend the are that serious, the authorities tself t rules, and the suspension by itself employee under the relevant rul ities d cover procedure. The authorities permits a resort to the sealed co y.” thus are not without a remedy.” 9. Admittedly, at the time of retire sheet f retirement neither any charge sheet nor any crim y criminal proceedings were pending b gainst ding before any Court of law against the petitione titioner. The respondent is not entitl ionary entitled to withhold the pensionary benefits of th s of the petitioner. The case of the pet by the he petitioner is further covered by the judgment ren nt rendered by this Court in CWP N WP No.3493 of 1986 titled as ‘L.R. L.R. Dhawan Vs. Vs. State of Haryana’ and reiterat 2012 reiterated in CWP No.20687 of 2012 titled as as ‘Amarjit Singh Vs. Pun Punjab state Civil Supplies plies Corporation tion Ltd.’ 10. In view of the discussion abov ion is n above, the present writ petition is allowed and and the respondent(s)/competent aut se the ent authority is directed to release the remaining wi withheld retiral dues of the petiti % petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum to um to be calculated from post two mo ement wo months after the date of retirement PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 CWP WP-6227-2024 till actual pay ual payment within a period of three m eceipt three months from the date of receipt of certified co ified copy of this order. 11. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Arguments
Mr. V.P Malik, Advocate for the or the petitioner. Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana aryana. Ms.Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate f (through V.C.) ocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate **** ocate for respondent No.4. HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has be 6/227 has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India with a prayer for e writ, er for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direc r directions especially in the nature o etting ture of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the imp he impugned order dated 28.09.2021(A dated 2021(Annexure P-25) and order dated 02.11.2021(A 021(Annexure P-26) to the extent extent of withholding Rs.4,18,734/ ,734/- passed by res by respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petition the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner w ner was a regular employee of th since of the respondent-Federation since 26.09.1983. 983. He worked on different posts re till posts during his service tenure till attaining the g the age of superannuation on 30.0 of the n 30.04.2021. The retiral dues of the PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP WP-6227-2024 petitioner we ner were withheld on the ground tha nd that respondent No.4 has made ade a deduction of ion of Rs.81,307/- from the bill gener The l generated by respondent No.2. The charge-sheet sheet was issued against the petitio dated petitioner vide memo No.531 dated 28.01.2021 a 021 and was filed on 11.05.2021. tioner 021. Admittedly, when the petitioner retired from from the service there were no discip dings disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending again
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE September 1 P.C ber 17, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.29 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document