IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10303 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2013. Gian Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA. Present:- Mr. A.D.S. Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Inspector under the Department of Food & Civil Supplies, State of Punjab in the year 1974. The post of Sub Inspector was re-designated as Inspector Grade-II in the year 1996. Petitioner was promoted as Inspector Grade-I in 2002 and he retired from such post on 29.2.2008 upon attaining the age of superannuation.
The instant writ petition is directed against a charge sheet dated 22.4.2010 at Annexure P-8, wherein the following precise Articles of Charge have been drawn up against the petitioner:-
"I, D.S. Grewal, IAS, Director Food and Supplies Department, Punjab allege the following allegations against you:-
1. When you were working as Superintendent Grade-I, PR Centre Dharamkot, District Moga in the crop season of 2000-
01, purchased paddy and the same was stored in the below mentioned Mills under Dharamkot Centre. The rice that was to be received back was short against the total receivable rice as per the table below:-
Sr. Name of the Mill Stored Paddy Rice in Delivered Loss of rice No. (Qtls.) making Rice (Qtls.) (Qtls.) (Qtls.) M/s Harnam Murari 1 Agro 50470 32805.49 32714.52 90.97 2 M/s Doss Agro Mills 893.00 580.45 474.05 106.40 3 M/s Singla Rice Mills 42.00 27.30 - 27.30 M/s Sandhu Rice 42.00 27.30 - 27.30 4 Mills M/s Baba Godiram 42.00 27.30 - 27.30 5 Rice Mills M/s Kwality Rice 63.00 40.95 - 40.95 6 Mills 7 Total 51552.00 33508.79 33188.57 320.22 The above 320.22 quintals of rice has not been received by the Government in their records from the above said mills.
2. That the paddy purchased by you in the crop season 2000-01 at Dharamkot centre and send to other districts/centre with authorization through M/s Deep Trading Company to Nauhria Rice Mills, Badhni Kalan. A total of 671.40 quintals has not been received in the accounts/records of the Government.
3. That the purchase of 247172 sacs weighing 127280.25 in the crop season of 2000-01 at Dharamkot Centre and sent to other districts/centre without authorization and after subtracting and thereafter 14303 sacs weighing 9538.20 quintals and out of this with a ration 67% amounting to 6390.59 has not been accounted for in the government's records.
4. That the paddy sent to Fatehgarh Panjtoor and also to Kot Isakhan and the output of rice amounting to 301 quintals and 51.45 quintals respectively has not been accounted or is reflected in the government records.
As per the above, 320.22+671.40+6390.59+301+51.45=7734.66 is unaccounted for in the government records and whose cost comes to Rs.8298903 and 14303 empty sacs @ of Rs.13.10/- per sac comes to Rs.187396 and the entire sum comes to Rs.8486272/-
is the total loss to the government for which you are responsible.
The government has suffered a loss of Rs.8401409/- as simple interest @ Rs.12% per annum on Rs.8486272/- for 99 months from 01.7.01 till 31.07.09 and thereby the total comes to Rs.8486272+ Rs.8401409= Rs.16887618/- for which you are responsible.
That you have not obeyed the government policy/instructions on milling and did not get the milling done within time and thus has been irresponsible in performance of duty. The less amount of paddy has been embezzled by him and he is an irresponsible employee who cannot be trusted and has not performed his duty without dedication towards the government.
Director Food and Civil Supplies Department, Punjab."
While issuing notice of motion on 5.8.2010 this Court had directed that even though, the inquiry proceedings may go on but the final decision thereupon be not taken.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge sheet primarily on two grounds. In the first instance, it has been contended that a charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner earlier in point of time i.e. vide charge memo dated 18.7.2005. In pursuance to such charge sheet having been issued a regular departmental inquiry had been conducted by the Inquiry Officer namely Sh. G.S. Aggarwal, who had furnished an inquiry report dated 1.2.2008 at Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner had been exonerated of all the charges. Counsel would contend that without assigning any reason an order dated 16.4.2010 was passed by the Director, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Punjab in the light of which the charge sheet dated 18.7.2005 issued to the petitioner was withdrawn and a decision was taken to initiate fresh proceedings. Counsel has argued that the matter having been inquired into and findings having been returned in favour of the petitioner, there was no basis for the respondent-authorities to have withdrawn the earlier charge sheet and thereafter, to have issued the impugned charge sheet at Annexure P-8 on the same very allegations.
The second submission raised by the counsel is on the strength of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II and it has been contended that since the petitioner retired in the year 2008 and the impugned charge sheet at Annexure P-8 had been issued on 22.4.2010 and the same relates to allegations pertaining to the year 2000-01, the embargo contained in the rule would come into play and as such, the impugned charge sheet cannot sustain having been issued in clear violation of the statutory provisions.
Learned State counsel would submit that the charges contained in the earlier charge sheet issued in the year 2005 were not identical to the ones raised in the subsequent impugned charge sheet at Annexure P-8. Counsel has further argued that there would be no bar in so far as the competent authority taking a decision to withdraw the earlier charge sheet and thereafter to proceed further in the matter in the light of a fresh charge sheet. In so far as the factual position of the petitioner having retired in the year 2008, the impugned charge sheet having been issued on 22.4.2010 and the allegations contained in such impugned charge sheet relating to the year 2000-01, the same have not been disputed.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. I am of the considered view that the question with regard to the charges levelled in the previous charge sheet dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure P-
2) and the charges levelled in the impugned charge sheet dated 22.4.2010 at Annexure P-8 being identical in nature and a de novo inquiry having been initiated would not require any consideration and examination. This is precisely for the reason that the impugned charge sheet cannot sustain in the light of Rule 2.2. (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. The Rule in question reads in the following terms:-
"2.2 (b) 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 even which took place more than four years before such institution.
(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."
A perusal of the aforementioned statutory provision would make it apparent that, if, the departmental proceedings are not instituted while the officer is in service, then, such departmental proceedings cannot be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years prior to the date of institution of the departmental proceedings itself. In the light of the admitted position of facts in the present case, the impugned charge sheet was issued on 22.4.2010 and a perusal of the charge sheet itself would reveal that it relates back to an incident/allegations pertaining to the year 2000-01. The scope and ambit of Rule 2.2 (b) came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in case of Sub Inspector Puran Chand retired Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) RSJ 85 and it was held in the following terms:-
"7. Pointed attention of this Court has been drawn to clause (2) of the aforesaid rule 2.2 (b). A careful perusal of the same would show that in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event, which took place more than four years from the date when the proceeding is initiated. It is clear that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in the instant case on 24.11.1998, whereas the incident in question in respect to which he has been proceeded against relates to the year 1988 i.e. one decade prior to the issuance of the charge sheet. It is obvious that issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet is wholly unacceptable in law, as the same is clearly barred by the provisions of clause (2) of rule 2.2 (b) extracted above.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in Narinder Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & another, 1996 (2) SLR 270, wherein this Court has also come to the conclusion that the Disciplinary authority is empowered to initiate disciplinary action against an employee even after his retirement, subject to the condition, that the enquiry pertained to an incident not more than four years prior to the date of initiation of the enquiry . We fully endorse the decision referred to above and hold that initiation of enquiry in the instant case after retirement of the petitioner in respect of the allegation which pertained to the period about ten years prior to the initiation of the charge sheet is barred under the provisions of clause (2) of rule 2.2 (b) extracted above."
The issue raised in the instant writ petition would be squarely covered in terms of the judgement of the Division Bench in Sub Inspector Puran Chand's case (supra). The impugned charge sheet dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-8) in the present case having been issued after the retirement of the petitioner and in relation to an allegation/incident which was much prior to the period of four years from the date of issuance of the same, shall be clearly barred in the light of the statutory provisions contained in Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. Since the very initiation of the proceedings is without any sanction in law, any proceedings that may have been conducted in pursuance to the issuance of the impugned charge sheet would also be of no consequence.
For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed and the charge sheet dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-8) stands quashed.
Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE October 29, 2013.
lucky