Amarjit Singh Amar v. The Punjab State Agricultural

Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate for respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who joined as a Work Mistry and retired from the post of Junior Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2004 from the respondent-Board, has been served with the impugned charge-sheet purported to be dated

27.06.2005 (Annexure P2) but actually sent to the petitioner vide memo dated 12.03.2008 (Annexure P3). As per the allegations contained in the said charge-sheet, the petitioner had committed gross financial irregularities while he was posted as Junior Engineer in the Ferozepur Division during the years 1993-94 to 1995-96. CWP No.3831 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the above- mentioned charge-sheet in view of Rule 2(b)(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol-II as is applicable to the employees of the respondent-Board alsol and which prohibits initiation of departmental proceedings after retirement in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before institution of such proceedings. (3). The respondents in their counter-reply/affidavit have tried to explain that there is no delay on their part as it was only after the Civil Suit filed by the contractor was decreed on 15.11.1999 and their appeal dismissed on 01.03.2000, that the authorities came to know the fact that the petitioner had acted in gross violation of his authority causing financial loss to the Board. Thereafter, the process was started and the petitioner was served with the impugned charge-sheet dated 27.06.2005/12.03.2008. (4). In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be apposite to reproduce Rule 2.2 (b)(2)(ii) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol-II, which reads as follows :-

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 CWP No.3831 of 2009.doc - 3 – period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that – (1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner and as if the officer had continued in service. (2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before 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 an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; 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. (Emphasis applied) CWP No.3831 of 2009.doc - 4 – (5). The unambiguous and plain language of the Rule has been consistently interpreted by this Court in plethora of decisions to mean that no charge-sheet can be served upon a retired employee in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before issuance of the charge-memo. (6). In the case in hand, the charge-sheet admittedly pertains to the events which are said to have taken place between the years 1993-94 to 1995-96. The charge-sheet was purportedly prepared on 27th June, 2005 but has been actually served on the petitioner vide Memo dated 12.03.2008 only. Even in the year 2005, the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet was time barred in terms of Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) ibid. (7). The rule contemplates no exceptions to the maximum period described in Clause (ii) thereof. The delay sought to be explained by the respondents is, thus, inconsequential. Assuming the existence of power to condone delay in such like matters, yet the explanation tendered by the respondents is totally untrustworthy and hollow. I say so for the reason that the civil suit of the contractor was decreed on

15.11.1999 and first appeal was dismissed on

01.03.2000. The respondents still took more than CWP No.3831 of 2009.doc - 5 – five years to prepare the charge-sheet and over 8 years to issue the same. (8). The reliance placed by the respondents on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Kailash Nath, AIR 1989(1) SCC 321 also does not come to their rescue for the reason that the question considered in that case did not pertain to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings even after expiry of the period of four years contemplated by Clause (ii) of the Rule, referred to above. The view taken herein above, on the other hand, is fortified by a Division Bench decision of this Court in OP Kharab vs. HVPN Ltd. and others, 2007(2)RSJ 314. (9). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the charge-sheets/memos dated

27.06.2005/12.03.2008 (Annexure P2 & P3) are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereto, the withheld retiral benefits of the petitioner are directed to be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum. Ordered accordingly. Dasti . (10). (11). (SURYA KANT) CWP No.3831 of 2009.doc - 6 –

30.07.2010 vishal shonkar JUDGE